Karnataka High Court
Mahadevappa M Talawar vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2013
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO. 16974 OF 2004 (LR)
BETWEEN
1. MAHADEVAPPA M TALAWAR
Age:58 YEARS
R/O SAMPANGAOV, SUTAGATTI
BAILAHONGAL TALUK-591147
BELGAUM DIST
... PETITIONER
(By Sri: V P KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-1
2. LAND TRIBUNAL
BAILHONGAL BY ITS SECRETARY
2
BAILAHONGAL TALUK-591147
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
3. GATIGEPPA
Age: 38
CLAIMED AS SON OF BASAVANTHAPPA
GATIGEPPA BADARAMANNAVAR
R/O HANUMANAHATTI
BAILAHONGAL TALUK-591147
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
4. SANNAYELLAPPA
Age: 37
CLAIMED AS SON OF BASAVANTHAPPA
GATIGEPPA BADARAMANNAVAR
R/O HANUMANAHATTI
BAILAHONGAL TALUK-591147
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
5. SADEPPA
Age: 35
CLAIMED AS SON OF BASAVANTHAPPA
GATIGEPPA BADARAMANNAVAR
R/O HANUMANAHATTI
BAILAHONGAL TALUK-591147
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, HCGP, FOR R-1 & R-2,
Sri ASHOK R.KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE,
FOR R-3 TO 5 -ABSENT)
****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
3
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND
TRIBUNAL, BAILAHONGAL DT. 9.2.2004 ANX. E & CALL
FOR RECORDS OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BAILAHONGAL
DT. 9.2.2004 VIDE ANX.E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing R.S.No.179/1 measuring 5 acres 27 guntas of Sutagatti village, Bailahongal Taluk, Belgaum District. That he has been cultivating the lands eversince 1950. After the death of the petitioner's father the petitioners are cultivating the lands. On coming into force of the amended Land Reforms Act, the father of respondents 3 to 5 filed Form No.7, in respect of Sy.No.129 measuring 6 acres 29 guntas of Sutagatti village, Bailahongal Taluk, Belgaum District. By the order dated 6-11-1981 the Land Tribunal rejected the plea of the respondent on the ground that he was not the tenant of Sy.No.129. Aggrieved by the same, writ petition No.14832/1990 was filed. By the order dated 24-1-1991 the order of the Land Tribunal was 4 set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. On remand the Land Tribunal came to the conclusion that the original applicant having died, the person who has appeared before the Land Tribunal is different. It came to the conclusion that the applicant before the Land Tribunal is misusing the similar type of name. By the order dated 26-2-1993 the Land Tribunal rejected the plea of the tenant. Thereafter, the father of respondent No.3 filed writ petition No.20276/1993 challenging the said order. By the order dated 2-2-1999 the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The Land Tribunal on remand, granted occupancy rights to the respondents with respect to Sy.No.179. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
2. Sri V.P.Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-landlord submits that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the tenant has filed an application with respect to Sy.No.129. 5 However, occupancy rights have been granted with respect to Sy.No.179. That the original application filed by the tenant was amended by virtue of an application dated 19-5-1999. The same is evident from the records. In terms whereof, Sy.No.129 was corrected as Sy.No.179/1. However, the same is beyond authority of law. The last date for seeking amendment of Form No.7 was 30-6-1979. Any application thereafter, seeking any amendment, could not have been entertained. The said view had been affirmed by the Judgment of this Court in the case of C.R.POORNA PRAGNA vs. THE CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL reported in ILR 1999 KARNATAKA 2584. Therefore the Tribunal could not have permitted the amendment. Hence, the grant of occupancy rights with respect to the amended survey number is erroneous. His further plea is that the land in question is an inam land. Therefore no occupancy rights could be claimed by the tenant.
3. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 is absent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 6 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and examined the records. The records would show that the respondents filed an application on 19-5-1999 seeking amendment of Form No.7 to the effect of substituting Sy.No.129 to 179/1. However, the records does not disclose the exact date on which the application was allowed. However, in terms of the impugned order, it is stated that the application has been allowed and the Form No.7 was amended from Sy.No.129 to 179/1. The application is dated 19-5-1999. The cut off date to make such an application was in the year 1979. Therefore no such amendment was competent in law, after the said date. Infact, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SEETHADEVI vs. NARAYANA KANATH & OTHERS reported in 1987 (2) Kar.LJ 89 have reiterated the said fact. The Hon'ble Division Bench was of the view that even though Form No.7 is within time, if amendment application is made after the expiry of time, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. The Judgment of the Division bench, is clearly applicable to the case on 7 hand. Admittedly, the application has been filed only in the year 1999. The cut off date was in the year 1979. Thereafter an amendment could not have been allowed by the Tribunal. It had no jurisdiction to do so. Having done so, the grant of occupancy rights so far as the amended survey Number is concerned is therefore improper. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Land Tribunal is improper and liable to be set aside.
4. The second contention of the petitioner- landlord is that the suit lands are inam lands and not capable of being granted for occupancy rights. In view of the fact that the amendment permitted by the tribunal in converting the said Sy.No.is held to be opposed to law, the contention of the petitioner on this score would not be necessary to be considered. Under these circumstances, therefore, the question of going into the veracity of the amended lands in question and their status, would not be a relevant consideration. Consequently, the writ petition is 8 allowed. The order dated 9-2-2004 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bailhongal, in KLR;TRB:54:27 is set aside. Form No.7 filed by the respondent is rejected. Rule made absolute.
The application seeking amendment of the petition would become wholly unnecessary and is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE Rsk/-