Karnataka High Court
Bhimappa Dundappa Birada 40 Years vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 19 March, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.6765 OF 2004 (LR)
BETWEEN
1. BHIMAPPA DUNDAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
2. RAMAPPA DUNDAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
3. GURAWWA W/O. DUNDAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
ALL RESIDENTS OF SHIRAHATTI VILLAGE,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST BELGAUM.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SADIQ. N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M. S. BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-1
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ATHANI
BY ITS SECRETARY - TAHSILDAR,
2
ATHANI TALUK, ATHANI,
DIST: BELGAUM
3. NANDAKISHORE VITTALARAO GADGIL,
AGE: MAJOR, HOUSE NO 4383,
I.B.ROAD, VIKRAMPUR,
ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED
10.2.2004 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO REGISTER THE
PETITIONERS AS OCCUPANTS OF THE LAND IN QUESTION.
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.3 is the mother of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The mother of petitioner No.3 filed an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in survey number 28 measuring 18 acres 37 guntas situated at Shirahatti village, Athani taluk, 3 Belgaum district. Earlier, Sri Parappa Ajur was the tenant of the land in question. On his death Smt. Nimbawwa and her only daughter-petitioner No.3 have been cultivating the land in question. Nimbawwa filed an application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights. By the order dated 13.01.1982 occupancy rights were granted. The same was challenged in Writ Petition No.6072 of 1982 wherein the Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry. On the death of Nimbawwa, the petitioners were brought on record as the legal representatives. By the order dated 02.02.1994, occupancy rights were once again granted. The same was challenged in Writ Petition No.32376 of 1994 wherein the order of the Tribunal was set aside. The matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry. Thereafter, the impugned order has been granted rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Hence, the present petition. 4
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. That there is no material to indicate that the petitioners or the mother have lost possession of the land in question. That they continued to be in possession. That they have produced electricity bills and tax paid receipts which indicate that they are in possession.
3. On the other hand, the same is disputed by the respondents.
4. The admitted facts are that the original tenant surrendered his right, title and interest over the land in question on 13.04.1967 in terms of Annexure-R1 along with the statement of objections filed by the respondent- landlord. The same is not disputed. He died subsequently. Thereafter, in view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, Form No.7 was filed by his widow. She died during the pendency of the proceedings and the petitioners were impleaded as legal representatives. The 5 material being relied upon by the petitioners are the tax paid receipts and electricity bills. The same was not accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that the same pertains to the year 1982 on wards. In terms of Annexure-R2, as per mutation entry dated 04.09.1967, the name of the tenant was deleted from the record of rights. The name of the landlord was entered thereafter. Annexure R-3 is the record of rights showing the name of the landlord for the year 1967-68. Annexure R-4 is the record of rights for the year 1973-74. Annexure R-5 is a mutation which indicates that the landlord had obtained loan from PLD bank. Annexures R6 and R7- is a copy of the Government Order dated 15.02.1975 and 01.03.1979 fixing the land revenue. Therefore, all these materials would clearly indicate that the land was lawfully surrendered by the tenant as on 13.04.1967. The electricity bill and tax paid receipts for the year 1982 would not come to the aid of the petitioners. The entire case of the petitioners is based on these materials. The 6 same cannot be relied upon for grant occupancy rights to them. When the tenant has lawfully surrendered his tenancy, he cannot now contend that he is in actual possession of the same. The entire material produced by the respondents would clearly indicate to the contrary. Not only that the tenant has lawfully surrendered the tenancy but the name of the landlord has been entered in the records. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition.
Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv