Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramanna Rai @ Ramanna Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.33498/2011 c/w.
WRIT PETITION Nos.46939/2011 & 1817-1818/2012
WRIT PETITION No.33498/2011
BETWEEN :
Sri.Ramanna Rai @
Ramanna Shetty
Since deceased by L.Rs.
1. Hariappa Rai,
S/o. Ramanna Rai
Aged 48 years.
2. Jaganatha Rai,
S/o.Ramanna Rai,
Aged 35 years.
Both residents of
Kutrupadi Village,
Puttur Taluk (D.K.). ....Petitioners
(By Sri.Vishwajith Shetty, Adv.,)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary to
2
Revenue Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. The Land Tribunal,
Puttur Taluik, D.K.District,
Represented by its Secretary.
3. Sri.Samputa Narasimhadevaru
Bhandaram,
Subramanya, D.K.District,
Represented by its Manager.
4. Sri.Mahalakshmiamma
W/o. late Narayana Bhat,
Since deceased by her L.Rs.
a). Smt.Sarojini,
W/o.Sachidananda Bhat,
Major.
b). Sri.Balachandra Rao,
S/o. Sachidananda Bhat,
Major.
c). Sri.Purnachandra Rao,
S/o. Sachidananda Bhat, Major,
d). Sri.Prabhakar Bhat,
S/o.Late Mahalakshmi Amma, Major.
e). Smt.Rathnavathi,
D/o.Late Mahalakshmi Amma, Major.
f). Sri.Radhakrishna Bhat,
S/o.Late Mahalakshmi Amma, Major.
3
g). Smt.Seethalakshmi,
D/o.Late Mahalakshmi Amma, Major.
h). Sri.Sathyaprakash,
S/o.Late Mahalakshmi Amma, Major.
i). Smt.Sumangali,
D/o.Late Mahalakshmi Amma, Major.
Respondents 4(a) to (i)
Are r/at. Kutrupadi Village,
Puttur Taluk,
D.K.District. ...Respondents
(By Sri.Srinivasa, T.P. AGA for R1 & R2,
Sri.Krishna Moorthy D. for R4(d) to (i),
Sri.Venugopal M.S. for R3 and
Sri.B.V.Krishna for R4(a) to (c)).
*******
This Petition is filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the
Constitution praying to quash the order dated 8-7-2011
Annexure-A passed by Respondent No.2.
WRIT PETITION Nos.46939/2011 & 1817-1818/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Smt.Sarojini,
W/o.Late Sachidananda Rao,
Aged about 64 years.
2). Sri.Balachandra Rao,
S/o.Late Sachidananda Rao,
Aged about 42 years.
3). Sri.Purnachandra Rao,
4
S/o. Late Sachidananda Rao,
Aged about 38 years.
All are residing at Halekodibailu
House, Kotrupadi village,
Kadaba Post, Puttur Taluk,
D.K.District (Tenants). ...Petitioners
(By Sri.B.V.Krishna, Adv.,)
AND:
1. Sri.Samputa Narasimhadevaru
Subramanya Mutt,
Subramanya, Sullia Taluk,
D.K.District,
Represented by its Manager.
Sri.Govindacharya (landlord)
(Name deleted v.o.dt.18-9-12).
2). Sri. Prabhakara Bhat,
S/o.Late Narayana Bhat,
Aged about 65 years.
Residing at Maroor House,
Post:Belve, Kundapur Taluk,
Udupi District.
3). Smt.Rathnavathi,
D/o.Late Narayana Bhat,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at. Brahmakumari's
Hebri, Karkala Taluk,
Kalapete, Udupi District.
4). Sri.Radhakrishna Bhat,
S/o.Late Narayana Bhat,
Aged about 58 years,
5
R/at.Dharithri Associates,
Near Taluk Office,
Puttur, D.K.
5). Smt.Seethalakshmi,
D/o.Jayanatha, aged 56 years,
Residing at "Om Shanthi",
Netravathi Compound,
Munnar Post,
Mangalore-575 017.
6). Sri.Sathyaprasad Bhat,
S/o.Late Narayana Bhat,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at. Halekodibail House,
Kutrupady Village, P.O.Kadaba,
Puttur Taluk, D.K.District.
7). Smt.Sumangala,
D/o.Late Narayana Bhat,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at. Prajapitha Brahmakumari,
Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya,
Gangadhareshwara Temple Compound,
Harapanahalli, Davangere Taluk.
8). Sri.Ramanna Rai, @
Ramanna Shetty,
Since deceased by L.Rs.
8(a). Hariappa Rai,
S/o.Late Ramanna Rai, major,
R/at.Halekodibailu House,
Kotrupadi villabge, Kadaba Post,
Puttur Taluk, D.K.
8(b). Jaganatha Rai,
6
S/o.Late Ramanna Rai, major,
R/at. Halekodibailu House,
Kotrupadi villabge, Kadaba Post,
Puttur Taluk, D.K.
9. The Land Tribunal,
Puttur,
D.K.District. ...Respondents
(By Srinivasa,T.P. AGA for R9,
Sri.Venugopal M.S. for R1,
Sri.Krishna Moorthy, D. for R2 to R7,
Respondents 8(a) & (b) Sd.).
*****
Writ Petitions 46939/2011 and 1817-18/2012 are filed
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying to
quash the order dated 8-7-2011 passed by the Land Tribunal,
Puttur in so far as granting occupancy right in favour of
Respondent nos.2 to 7 vide Annexure-A and direct the Land
Tribunal to grant occupancy right exclusively to
Sachidananda Rao, since deceased by his L.Rs.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 8-7-2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Puttur, in Case No.LRYT, 5543, 4362/74-75 and 1586/1889/76-77 vide Annexure-A. 7
2. By the impugned order at Annexure-A, the Land Tribunal, Puttur, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.33498/2011 and granted occupancy rights in favour of the respondents 4(a) to (i) in W.P.No.33498/2011 in respect of Sy.No.32/3 measuring 4 acres 94 cents and Sy.No.32/1 measuring 44 cents.
3. The grievance of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.46939/2011 and 1817-18/2012 is that the Tribunal has erred in granting occupancy rights in favour of the respondents 2 to 7. the Tribunal should have exclusively granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners.
4. Briefly stated the facts are:
The petitioner in W.P.No.33498/2011 claims that the land bearing Sy.No.32/3 measuring 1 acre 20 cents and the land bearing Sy.No.32/1 measuring 44 cents of Kutrupadi village is in possession and cultivation of the petitioner since 1964. The third respondent is the owner of the land. One Narayana Bhat, the husband of the fourth respondent took 8 the land on lease. The land was subleased to the petitioner by Narayana Bhat. Neither Narayana Bhat nor fourth respondent issued any rent receipt in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has constructed a thatched house in the land in question and he has been residing there since 1965.
5. The petitioner filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.32/3 measuring 1 acre 20 cents and Sy.No.32/1 measuring 44 cents of Ketrupady village. The fourth respondent and one Babu Shetty also filed Form No.7. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 25-7-1981 granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands claimed by him. It was challenged in W.P.No.26989/1981. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter, by order dated 18-2-1989 the application of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner preferred an appeal in LRAA 161/1989. It was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.15406/1993. This Court by its order dated 21-6-1999 allowed the writ petition and 9 remitted the matter with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner by giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence. The petitioner has produced several documents including the letter dated 8-3-1989 and statement of objections filed by the owner before the Appellate Authority and examined witnesses also. It is stated, the Tribunal without considering the documents and oral evidence has passed the impugned order at Annexure-'A'. Therefore, this writ petition.
6. In so far as W.P.Nos.46935/2011 and 1817- 1818/2012 are concerned, the grievance of the petitioners is that the Tribunal has erred in granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents-2 to 7. The Tribunal should have exclusively granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners.
7. The learned counsel for the LRs of the petitioner in W.P.No.33498/2011 contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that this court 10 in W.P.No.15406/1993 had directed the Tribunal to consider the RTC entries, the letter dated 8-3-1989 and oral evidence. The Tribunal without considering the oral or documentary evidence has passed by the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
8. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents 4(a) to (i) in W.P.No.33498/2011 submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. They also submitted that the Tribunal on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly granted occupancy rights and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.46939/2011 and 1817-18/2012 submitted that the Tribunal has erred in granting occupancy rights in favour of the respondents 2 to 7. He also submitted that Sachidananda Rao, the husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 to 3 had filed Form No.7 and therefore, the Tribunal should have granted occupancy rights 11 only in favour of the petitioners. He therefore submitted that the impugned order needs to be modified.
10. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents-2 to 7 in W.P.Nos.46939/2011 and 1817- 18/2012 submitted that Smt.T.Mahalakshmi Amma was the applicant and occupancy rights were granted in favour of Smt.T.Mahalakshmi Amma in respect of Sy.Nos.32/3 and 32/1 measuring 4 acres 94 cents and 44 cents respectively. In W.P.No.15406/1993, the petitioner in W.P.No.33498/2011 had challenged the rejection of his claim in respect of Sy.Nos.32/3 and 32/1 measuring 1 acre 10 cents and 44 cents respectively. This court remitted the matter only to consider the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.46939/2011 and 1817-18/2012 cannot contend that they are exclusively entitled for grant of occupancy rights. The Tribunal has rightly granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners and also respondents-2 to 7 jointly. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. 12
11. The learned AGA submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted the Tribunal considering the material on record has rightly granted occupancy rights and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
12. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
14. It is relevant to note, the petitioner in W.P.No.33498/2011 has filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.32/3 and 32/1 of Kutrupadi village measuring 1 acre 20 cents and 44 cents respectively. The fourth respondent Mahalakshmi Amma and her son Sachhidananda Bhat have filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of several survey numbers including Sy.No.32/3 measuring 4 acres 94 cents and 13 Sy.No.32/1 measuring 44 cents. The Tribunal by its order dated 25-7-1981 had granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.33498/2011 in respect of the lands claimed by him. That was challenged by the fourth respondent Mahalakshmi Amma in W.P.No.26989/1981. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter, by order dated 18-2-1989 the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner in W.P.No.33498/2011 and granted occupancy rights in favour of Mahalakshmi Amma in respect of Sy.No.32/3 and 32/1 measuring 4 acres 94 cents and 44 cents respectively. It was challenged in LRAA No.161/1989. The matter was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.15406/1993. This Court by its order dated 21-6-1999 has remitted the matter with a direction to consider the RTC entries, letter dated 8-3-1989 and oral evidence. The order of the Tribunal is quashed only in so far as it relates to the claim of the petitioner in W.P.No.33498/2011. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal vide Annexure-A granting 14 occupancy right in favour of the petitioners and respondents- 2 to 7 in W.P.Nos.46939/1011 and 1817-18/2012. It is clear from the order passed in W.P.No.15406/1993, this Court has directed the Tribunal to consider the RTC entries, letter dated 8-3-1989 and the oral evidence. In the course of the proceedings, the petitioner has produced the statement of objections filed by the owner in the appeal. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence adduced by the petitioner in W.P.No.33498/2011. The documents produced by the petitioner, namely, the statement of objections filed before the Appellate Authority, the letter dated 8-3-1989 and the evidence of the witnesses has not been considered. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
15. In W.P.No.15406/1993 this Court has quashed the order of the Tribunal only in so far as it relates to the claim of the petitioner in W.P.No.33498/2011 i.e., Sy.No.32/3 measuring 1 acre 20 cents and Sy.No.32/1 measuring 44 15 cents. The occupancy rights granted in favour of Mahalakshmi Amma for the remaining extent in Sy.No.32/3 is not disturbed. Therefore, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.46939/2011 and 1817-1818/2012 cannot contend that they are exclusively entitled for the grant of occupancy rights.
Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P.No.33498/2011 is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 8-7-2011, passed by the Land Tribunal, Puttur, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal, Puttur, with a direction to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in the course of this order and also the direction given in W.P.No.15406/1993.
W.P.Nos.46939/2011 and W.P.Nos.1817-1818/2012 are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
NT/-