Karnataka High Court
Vasudeva Kini Since Dead By Lrs vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.209 OF 2012 (LR)
BETWEEN:
VASUDEVA KINI
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
S/O PADURANGA KINI.
1. MAMMAI BAI
W/O LATE VASUDEVA P. KINI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2. N. SRINIVAS V. KINI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE VASUDEVA P. KINI.
3. N. USHA KINI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
W/O RAVINDRA KINI
D/O LATE VASUDEVA P. KINI.
4. PRAKASH KINI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE VASUDEVA P. KINI.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NARAVI VILLAGE AND POST
BELTHANGADY TALUK
2
D.K. DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. S.K. ACHARYA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BANGALORE-01.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BELTHANGADY
R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. MEENAKSHI
W/O NAGESH KINI
AGED 62 YEARS
R/T NALKEDABETTU
NITTE VILLAGE, KARKALA TQ AND POST
UDUPI DIST.
4. GANESH SHENOY
S/O LATE VAMAN SHENOY
AGED 55 YEARS
R/O NALKEDABETTU, NITTE VILLAGE
KARKALA TQ AND POST, UDUPI DIST.
5. MADHAVA SHENOY
S/O LATE VAMAN SHENOY
AGED 53 YEARS
R/O NALKEDABETTU, NITTE VILLAGE
KARKALA TQ AND POST, UDUPI DIST.
6. GOPALA SHENOY
S/O LATE VAMANA SHENOY
AGED 50 YEARS
R/O NALKEDABETTU, NITTE VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK AND POST
UDUPI DISTRICT.
3
7. N. KESHAVA SHENOY
S/O LATE VAMANA SHENOY
AGED 47 YEARS
R/O NALKEDABETTU, NITTE VILLAGE
KARKALA TQ AND POST, UDUPI DISTRICT.
8. B. ANANDA SHENOY
S/O LATE VAMAN SHENOY
AGED 42 YEARS
R/O NALKEDABETTU, NITTE VILLAGE
KARKALA TQ AND POST, UDUPI DISTRICT.
9. PRADEEP KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATESH KAMATH
MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA POST
MOODIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1 & R2
MR. NAVEEN KUMAR M.G. ADV., FOR
MR. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADV., FOR R3
R4 (a-c), R5-R8
MR. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADV., FOR R9)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.6126/2010 (LR)
DATED 14/12/2011.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the father of the appellants claimed to be a tenant in respect of certain lands bearing Sy.Nos.59/6 and 59/14 situated at Naravi Village, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, measuring 0.07 acres and 0.33 acres respectively. He therefore, filed an application seeking occupancy rights. The land tribunal granted the occupancy rights. The order passed by the land tribunal was subject matter of challenge in writ petition viz., W.P.No.15314/89 which was filed by mother of respondents No.3 to 8. The aforesaid writ petition was 5 allowed and the matter was remitted to the tribunal for fresh enquiry.
3. The tribunal by an order dated 23.07.1986 granted occupancy rights. The aforesaid order passed by the tribunal was challenged in W.P.No.2006/1993, which was allowed only in respect of land bearing Sy.No.59/6, Sy.No.59/14P1 and Sy.No.59/14P2 measuring 40 cents, in all and the matter was remitted for fresh enquiry. The tribunal by an order dated 15.02.2010 rejected the claim for tenancy inter alia on the ground that the lands are not agricultural lands.
4. The appellants challenged the validity of the aforesaid order passed by the land tribunal in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 14.12.2011 inter alia held that appellants are guilty of 6 suppression of facts inasmuch as detailed order passed by the land tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants was not produced. The learned Single Judge on perusal of Annexure-R2 inter alia held that land bearing Sy.No.59/6 and Sy.No.59/14 are punja lands and is classified as non agricultural land. Therefore, the question of grant of occupancy rights does not arise.
5. The learned Single Judge further took into account the fact that the conduct of the appellants and held that the same is not bonafide as Form 7A for grant of occupancy rights was got filed by daughter in law. The learned Single Judge therefore, dismissed the writ petition. After dismissal of the proceeding initiated by original appellant, the daughter in law filed Form 7A who admittedly resided with the original 7 appellant. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding recorded by the land tribunal that ht eland in question is not an agricultural land is perverse and is based on ignorance of material available on record. It is further submitted that RTC extracts as well as the rent receipts, which were available on record have not been examined.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has pointed out from the record that lands in question are recorded as punja lands and are dry lands, therefore, question of grant of occupancy rights does not arise. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 has supported the order passed by 8 learned Single Judge and has placed reliance on a division bench decision in 'SUBHAKAR AND OTHERS VS. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KARKALA TALUK, KARKALA AND OTHERS', ILR 1999 KAR (SN 35) 71. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 has pointed out that respondents 3 to 8 are not the owners of land in question and respondent No.9 has filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration of title, which is pending adjudication.
8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) can be granted only in respect of agricultural lands as defined under Section 2(18) of the Act. In order to claim occupancy right, a person needs to prove that the land in question is an agricultural land and he 9 was in possession of the same as a tenant on 01.03.1974. The dispute in this proceeding is confined only to Sy.No.59/6, Sy.No.59/14P1 and Sy.No.59/14P2 measuring 40 cents. From perusal of the record, it is evident that original appellant viz., Vasudev Kini had filed Form 7 on 29.07.1974 and had described one Kalasha Venkatesh Kamath as landlord instead of respondents No.3 to 8. He had purchased 'Muli right' in respect of the disputed property on 11.07.1974. From perusal of the sale deed filed before the tribunal as Ex.R8, the original appellant himself had described the lands in question as punja lands.
9. From perusal of recitals of the transfer deed Ex.R2 it is evident that the original appellant was not in possession of the lands in question on 01.03.1974. It is also pertinent to mention that while the claim of the original appellant was pending adjudication in 10 this court, his daughter in law filed Form 7A showing the original appellant and one Kalasa Venkatesh Pai as owner of the disputed land. It is noteworthy that daughter in law of the appellant admittedly resided with the appellant.
10. It is also pertinent to note that the original appellant did not produce detailed order passed by the land tribunal rejecting the claim for grant of occupancy rights and contended before the learned Single Judge that the order passed by the land tribunal is cryptic. However, the respondents produced detailed order passed by the land tribunal and thereafter, the learned Single Judge found that the appellant is guilty of suppression of material facts.
11. From perusal of the record produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, it is evident that the land in question is a punja land and 11 therefore, the question of grant of occupancy rights does not arise. The original appellant is a party to the sale deed Ex.R8 dated 11.07.1974, in which the land in question has been described as punja lands. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the lands in question are either the agricultural lands or the original appellant was in possession of the land on 01.03.1974. The conduct of the appellants in suppressing the material facts also disentitles them to any relief in exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this court.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We need not advert to the claim of title in respect of lands in question made by respondent No.9, in this intra court appeal, as the same is pending adjudication before the competent court.
12
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SS