Karnataka High Court
Hanumantha Rama Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.30486 OF 2003 (LR)
BETWEEN
SRI. HANUMANTHA RAMA NAIK,
SINCE DECEASED BY L.Rs.
1(a). SMT. MANJI
W/O LATE HANUMANTH RAMA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
1(b). SRI RAMA NAIK,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHA RAMA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
1(c). MANJUNATH NAIK,
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHA RAMA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 1(a) to 1(c) ARE THE
PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF HADIMANE,
SALKOAD VILLAGE, HONNAVAR TALUK,
NORTH KANARA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
2
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE -560001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HONNAVAR,
BY ITS SECRETARY & TAHSILDAR,
HONNAVAR TALUK, AT: HONNAVAR,
NORTH KANARA DISTRICT.
3. GAJANANA KRISHNA HEGDE,
S/O KRISHNA HEGDE,
AGE: 80 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT KASAKHANDA,
POST: SALKOAD, HONNAVAR TALUK,
NORTH KANARA DISTRICT.
4. GAJANANA GOVINDA HEGDE,
S/O LATE GOVINDA HEGDE,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KASAKHANDA,
P.O. SALKODA, TALUK:HONNAVAR,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
5. VISHWANATH GOVINDA HEGDE,
S/O LATE GOVINDA HEGDE,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KASAKHANDA,
P.O. SALKOAD, HONNAVAR TALUK,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.
6. ESHWAR VENKATA NAIKA,
S/O. VENKATA NAIKA,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
7. SHIVU VENKATA NAIK,
S/O. VENKATA NAIK,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
3
8. MAHADEVI W/O THIMMAIAH NAIKA,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
9. KRISHNAPPA GANAPA NAIKA,
SINCE DEAD BY L.Rs.
9(a) MAHADEVA KRISHNAPPA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HADIMANE, SALKOD POST,
HONNAVAR TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
9(b) HANUMANTH KRISHNAPPA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HADIMANE, SALKOD POST,
HONNAVAR TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
10. SMT. IERU W/O KRISHNA NAIKA,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 6 TO 10 ARE
THE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF
HADIMANE IN SALKOAD VILLAGE,
SALKOAD POST, HONNAVAR TALUK,
NORTH KANARA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI. SURESH S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.9(A) AND 10)
(RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 8 AND 9(B) - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2003, PASSED IN
4
CASE NO.LMR/SR/61/ 92+223+245 ON THE FILE OF THE
LAND TRIBUNAL, HONNAVAR, i.e., THE 2ND RESPONDENT
HEREIN, VIDE ANNEXURE-H. QUASH THE SPOT
INSPECTION REPORT DATED 4.2.2003 PASSED IN CASE
NO.LMR/SR/61/92+223+245 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND
TRIBUNAL, HONNAVAR i.e., THE 2ND RESPONDENT
HEREIN, VIDE ANNEXURE-G. DIRECT THE 2ND
RESPONDENT LAND TRIBUNAL TO CONFIRM THE
OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF 12 GUNTAS OF LAND BEARING
SY.NO.359/2 OF SALKOAD VILLAGE, HONNAVAR TALUK IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE SPOT INSPECTION REPORT
DATED 30.03.1976 ON THE LINE OF THE ORDER OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 07.07.1999 PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION NO.42141 OF 1995, VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights to an extent of 12 guntas out of the total extent of 4 acres 14 guntas in Sy. No.359/2 of Salkod village, Honnavar taluk, Uttara Kannada district. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the landlords. The father of respondent Nos.6 and 7 are rival claimants. The Land Tribunal by the order dated 13.03.1976 granted occupancy rights to the 5 petitioner. The plea of the rival claimants were rejected. The landlord filed Writ Petition No.5211 of 1976 challenging the said order. The petition was allowed and the matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry. Thereafter, disputes arose between the petitioner and the rival claimants. On approaching the police, the Tahsildar instituted proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and appointed the 9th respondent- a rival tenant as a receiver. The same was challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court, Karwar wherein it directed restoration of the land to the petitioner. Accordingly, the possession was restored by the Tahsildar on 19.09.183. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal held a spot inspection on 20.03.976. An interim order was also granted in favour of the petitioner restraining the rival claimants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the 12 guntas of land in view of the fact that the spot inspection report indicated the possession of the petitioner. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner was 6 rejected by the order 28.07.1987 by placing reliance on the Criminal proceedings. The same was questioned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.42141 of 1995. By the order dated 7th July 1999, the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal with a direction to consider the material gathered by the Tribunal which was already on record and to give a fresh opportunity to the parties, if, necessary. Subsequently, the impugned order is passed wherein the application of the petitioner was rejected and the claim of the rival claimants was granted. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Tribunal has deliberately suppressed the earlier spot inspection report which showed the possession of the petitioner over the lands in question. The second spot inspection report was conducted in terms of Annexure-G dated 04.02.2003. The same is behind the back of the petitioners. That they were not even aware of conducting 7 the spot inspection. Therefore, the same was done only to suit the rival claimants.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate on going through the records submits that there are some signatures which she is unable to identify and clarify. On the other hand counsel for respondent Nos.9a and 10 submits that there is no error in the order of the Tribunal that calls for any interference. Except stating that the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order, no other submissions are forthcoming from him.
4. Heard learned counsels and examined the records.
5. The proceedings would indicate that the spot inspection was conducted by the Tribunal. In its report dated 20.03.1976, the same indicated the occupation of the petitioner over the lands in question. In fact, the same was also a subject matter in Writ Petition No.42141 of 1995. Therein, the learned Single Judge having found that 8 the spot inspect report was part of the records, the Land Tribunal had not considered that important piece of evidence. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the material gathered is extremely relevant for the just adjudication of the case. Therefore, it was sent back to the Tribunal to consider the spot inspection report dated 20.03.1976 and also to give a fresh opportunity to the parties, if, they so desire. Rather than considering the spot inspection report which was done at the earliest point of time, the Tribunal in a rather causal manner held that the spot inspection report is not available and proceeds to conduct a fresh inspection.
6. The 2nd spot inspection suffers form various infirmities. Firstly, the presence of the petitioner or his representative is not borne out from the spot inspection report. Therefore, it was done behind his back. Secondly, there was already a spot inspection report and hence there was no necessity for the Tribunal to hold the second spot inspection. In spite of the directions issued in the order 9 dated 7th July 1999 in Writ Petition No.42141 of 1995, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in not complying with the orders of this Court. It has proceeded to conduct a second spot inspection quite contrary to the directions issued by the Court. Therefore, the spot inspection report in terms of Annexure-G dated 04.02.2003 cannot be acted upon under any circumstances whatsoever.
7. The entire plea of the rival claimants is based only on the 2nd spot inspection report. Since it is indicated that he was in possession of the land in question, he has been granted occupancy rights for the very first time by the impugned order. In the earlier round of litigation based on the first spot inspection report, the claim of the rival claimants has been rejected. The same was challenged in the proceedings as narrated hereinabove. Therefore, when the first spot inspection report clearly indicates the possession of the petitioner and not of the rival claimants, the rejection of the claim of the rival claimants was justified. It is only on the basis of the 2nd 10 spot inspection report, that the rival claimants have been granted occupancy rights. As held hereinabove, the 2nd spot inspection report suffers from various infirmities. It cannot form a basis for grant of occupancy rights to the rival claimants.
8. Under these circumstances, in view of the first spot inspection report which is undisputed by the parties, and also the fact that it indicates the possession of the petitioner over the land in question, I have no hesitation to hold that based on the same, the tenancy rights should be granted to the petitioner. Admittedly, the undisputed first spot inspection report dated 20.03.1976 clearly shows the possession of the petitioner. The same is undisputed by the respondents. The Tribunal was asked to look into the same. It has deliberately given a false reason disobeying the orders of this Court and has created a new report. The same cannot be accepted. In view of the admitted position, the possession of the petitioner over the 11 land in question in terms of the first spot inspection report, the petition would have to be allowed.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the Land Tribunal, Honnavar, dated 25.03.2003 in case No.LMR/SR/61/92+223+245 vide Annexure-H is set aside. The petitioner is entitled for grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 12 guntas in Sy.No.359/2 of Salkoad village, Honnavar taluk, Uttar Kannada district. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to do the needful.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv