Karnataka High Court
Thirakanagouda N. Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2012
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
®
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
W.A. NO.30699/2012 (LR-RES)
BETWEEN:
THIRAKANAGOUDA N. PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
SHIVANAGOUDA THIRAKANAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1. ANANTHAGOUDA S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAKMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI
2. PRAKASH S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAKMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
3. JAGADISH S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAKMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
RAMACHANDRAGOUDA T. PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
4. SMT.SEETHAVVA W/O. RAMACHANDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2
R/O. LAKMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
5. ASHOK S/O. RAMACHANDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAKMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
6. NAGARAJ S/O. RAMACHANDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAKMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
7. DEVENDRAGOUDA PATIL
S/O. THIRAKANGOUDA T. PATIL
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAKMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
8. ANANDAGOUDA PATIL
S/O. THIRAKANRAGOUDA T. PATIL
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAKMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
9. SMT.SUSHEELA W/O. PANDURANGAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LAKMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.RAVI L.PATIL (SR.ADV) FOR
SRI.V.M.SHEELVANT, ADV)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE.
3
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
HANUMANTAGOUDA N. PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
RAMANAGOUDA H. PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
3. MALATHESHA S/O. LATE RAMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
4. MOHAN. S/O. LATE RAMANAGOUD PATIL
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
5. SURESH S/O.LATE RAMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
BASANAGOUDA H. PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
6. GOWRAVVA W/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
7. SHIVAJI S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
8. JAGADISHGOUDA S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 32 YERAS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
4
9. RADHABAI W/O. RAJAPPA THUKKOJI
AGE: 37 YERAS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
10. SHASHIKALA W/O. PRASAPPA BHAGAWANTI
AGE: 35 YERAS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
11. MANJAKKA W/O. SHRIKANT MANTHAGI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
12. NINGAMMA W/O. MOHAN THUKKOJI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
SHEKARAGOUDA H. PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
13. JANAVVA W/O. SHEKHARAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
14. MANJUNATH S/O. SHEKHARAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
15. VIJAYKUMAR S/O. SHEKHARAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
16. HANUMANTHGOUDA S/O. SHEKHARAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
5
17. KAVITHA S/O. SHEKHARAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
GANGADHARAGOUDA H. PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
18. NAGARAJ S/O. GANGADHARAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
19. BASAVARAJA S/O. GANGADHARAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
20. SAVITHA W/O. PRAKASH PAWAR
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
21. VIRUPAKSHGOUDA S/O. HANUMANTHAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
22. SMT.SULOCHANA W/O. BHAIRAPPA MALAVALLI
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
VEERABHADRAGOUDA N. PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
23. LAXMANAGOUDA S/O. VEERABHADRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
24. NIMBANAGOUDA S/O. VEERABHADRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
6
DIST: HAVERI.
25. THULAJANAGOUDA S/O. VEERABHADRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
KRISHNAJIGOUDA S/O. VEERABHADRAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
26. INDRAWWA W/O. KRISHNAJIGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
27. RUPA D/O. KRISHNAJIGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
28. DEEPA D/O. KRISHNAJIGOUD PATIL
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
29. RENUKA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA CHANNAPURA
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
30. SMT.PUTTAVVA W/O. PARASAPPA DHARMANNAVAR
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
BHARAMAGOUDA N.PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
BHIMANAGOUDA B.PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
31. ANUSUYA W/O. BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
7
DIST: HAVERI.
32. NARAYANA S/O. BHIMANAGOUD PATIL
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI
33. PRABHAKARA S/O BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ:HANGAL,
DIST:HAVERI.
34. PARASHURAMA S/O. BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
35. SUNANDA W/O. SHIVAJAPPA TEGGIHALLI
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
36. RENUKA W/O. PUNDALIKAPPA NINGOJI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
37. MOHANAGOUDA S/O. BHARAMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
38. CHIDANANDAGOUDA S/O. BHARAMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
39. KUBERAGOUDA S/O. BHARAMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
40. SADASHIVAGOUDA S/O. BHARAMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
8
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
41. MANJUNATHAGOUDA S/O. BHARAMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
42. PRAMILA W/O. NARAYANGOUDA BHAIRANNAVAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
PARASHURAMA NAGANAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
43. BASAVNNEVVA W/O. PARASHURAMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
44. PRAKASHGOUDA S/O. PARASHURAMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
45. NAGARAJAGOUDA S/O. PARASHURAMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
46. ANUSUYABAI W/O. SHIVAMUTHEPPA SALUNKE
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
47. GIRIJJAVVA W/O. KUBERAPPA KHANDOJI
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
48. SUMADEVI W/O. SHIVAJIRAO PAWAR
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
9
DIST: HAVERI.
49. INDIRA BAI W/O. CHANDRAPPA JARACHI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
50. YANKANAGOUDA BASANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
NIGANAGOUDA NAGANGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
THIPPANAGOUDA N. PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
51. SAMBAJIGOUDA S/O.THIPANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, HAVERI
52. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O. THIPPANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, HAVERI
53. DEVAKKA W/O. BHIMANNA KONDOJI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, HAVERI
54. SUNITHA W/O. ARJUNAPPA BALOJI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, HAVERI
55. YALLUBAI @ YANKAVVA
W/O.YALLAPPA @ LAKSHMAN ONIKER
@ CHONNADAVARA
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI
56. RATNAVVA W/O. ARJUNAPPA NAGOJI @ THUKKOJI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
10
DIST: HAVERI
57. RENUKA W/O. DEVENDRAPPA BAMMANAHALLI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI
THIRAKANAGOUDA NINGANNAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
58. JAGADISHGOUDA S/O. THIRAKANAGOUD PATIL
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI
59. PARSHURAMAGOUDA S/O. THIRAKANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI
60. GEETHA TEGGIHALLI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HUNGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
61. SATHAKKA
AGE: 50 YEARS,
R/O. HAVERI.
62. SHANTHAKKA
AGE: 55 YEARS,
R/O. ALAHALLI, TQ: HUNGUND.
MAHADEVAGOUDA NAGANAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
YALLAVVA W/O. MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
63. DHARAMAGOUDA S/O. MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 58 YEARS. OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
11
64. ARJUNAGOUDA S/O. MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
65. RAVIGOUDA S/O. MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
66. SAKKUBAI W/O. DEVENDRAPPA GOULER
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
67. GANGUBAI W/O. YASHWANTHARAO PAWAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARELAKAMAPUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH WODEYAR, AGA FOR R1 AND 2,
SRI.F.V.PATIL, ADV FOR R3 TO 8,
R-10, 13 TO 19, 21, 24 TO 28, 31 TO 33,
37, 38, 40, 41, 43 TO 50, 52 TO 59 AND
62 TO 65)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:29/05/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN
W.P.NO.16859/2011(LR) AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAM
MOHAN REDDY.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
12
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is preferred by the petitioners in W.P.No.16859/2011 aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition.
2. Facts not in dispute are:
One Naganagouda Patil, said to be the propositus, had eight children, since deceased represented by legal heirs, petitioners and respondents were parties in O.S.No.182/1966 on the file of the Munsiff, Haveri, for declaration, partition and separate possession of several immovable properties including lands in R.S.No.195 and 129/A measuring 20 acres and 31 guntas and 1 acre and 29 guntas, respectively, of Balambid village in Hangal taluk, admittedly, claimed to be in joint possession and cultivation of the siblings, as tenants. In the absence of a dispute lover tenancy claims, an issue over claim of tenancy was not framed and the suit ended in a 13 compromise decree dated 29.09.1966, Annexure-R-3 to the statement of objections of respondents, one of the terms of which reads thus:
"£ÀÄ£Á¢¬ÄAzÀ ¯ÁªÀt vÀjÃR £ÀrÃvÁ §A¢zÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼À «ªÀgÁ:-
j.¸À.£ÀA. J-UÀÄA vÀgA
À gÀÆ. Q.gÀÆ.
195 20-31 64-14-0 810-15-0
129:C 1-31 4-7-0 53-7-6
MlÄÖ 866-6-6
ªÁ¢ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ »jAiÀÄjAzÀ £ÀqPÀ ÉÆÃvÁ §A¢zÀÄÝ, M§âgÀ »¸ÀìPÀÌ ºÁQzÀgÉ G½zÀ ¸Àz¸ À ÀågÀ vÀPgÀ ÁgÀ §gÀ¯ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ JgÀqÀÆ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀªÁV ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ 1 jAzÁ 7 £Éà ¥Àw æ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÁUÀĪÀiÁqÀvPÀ ÀÌzÀÄÝ. ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ 1 jAzÁ 7£Éà ¥Àw æ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ¸ÀAUÀqÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgU É É £ÀqzÉ ÀÄ §AzÀ ¥ÀzÀÝw ªÀÄAiÀiÁðEAiÀÄAvÉ £ÀqPÀ ÉƼÀî¨ÃÉ PÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ ¸À®èvPÀ ÀÌ ¯ÁªÀtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÆß J®ègÀÆ PÀÆqÉà PÉÆqÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ."
3. By this term, the parties agreed that the lands in question since tenanted from the time of their ancestors, and if the property is shown as fallen to the share of one of the parties no disputes would arise, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 to cultivate the lands jointly and as has 14 been done till the present to jointly pay to the Landlord the rent (Lavani)
4. The Deputy Commissioner having initiated action to recover the levy over paddy grown on the said lands, under the Food Control Orders, the petitioners' father responded by an explanation Annexure-R4 to the statement of objections which reads thus:
"2) £ÁªÀÅ MlÄÖ J0lÄ d£ÀgÀÄ CtÚ vÀªÀä A¢gÀÄ ¬ÄzÀÄÝ ¸À£ï 1966 £Éà ¬Ä¹é ¸É¥ÀÖA§gï wAUÀ¼ÀzÀ°è CAzÀgÉ FUÀ JgÀqÀƪÀgÉ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀªÉÆä¼U À É D¹Û §UÉÎ vÀAmÉ §AzÀÄ ¸Àzg À À vÀAmÉAiÀÄÄ ºÁªÉÃj dÆår¹AiÀÄ¯ï ªÀiÁåf¸ÉÖçÃl PÉÆÃnð£À°è ¢ªÁt ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ £ÀA.182:1966 £ÉÃzÀÄÝ zÁR¯ÁV PÀqU É É £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ gÁfìÄAzÁ D¹Û ªÁlt ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ D ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ UÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀ PÀqU É É ªÀ¢ð PÉÆlÄÖ qÀzÀ°è £ÉÆÃAzÀ DVgÀÄvÀª Û É ºÁUÀÆ £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁV FUÀ ¥Àv æ ÀåPÀëªÁV d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀ»ªÁl ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝêÉ. ¬Ä£ÀÄß PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ »¸É ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ ¨ÁgÀzÉ ¬ÄzÀÝAxÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ PÀÆqÀAiÉÄà ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ §zÀÄPÀÄ ªÀiÁr §AzÀ GvÀà£ÀßzÀ°è £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ºÀAaPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝêÉ. ¬ÄzÀgÀAvÉAiÉÄ ¨Á¼ÀA©ÃqÀ UÁæªÄÀ zÀ°è £À£Àß ºÉ¸° À ð CªÀ¨PsÀ ÀÛ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgÀ CAvÁ gÉÊvÀ JAnæ ¬ÄzÀÝ ¯ÁªÀt d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼° À è ¸ÀºÁ £ÁªÉ®è J0lÄ d£À CtÚ vÀªÀä A¢gÀÄ PÀÆr §zÀÄPÀÄ ªÀiÁr §AzÀ GvÀà£ÀßzÀ° d«ÄãÀ ªÀiÁ®PÀjUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ CxÀªÁ ¯ÁªÀt ¨Á§Û PÁ¼ÀÄ PÉÆlÄÖ G½zÀzÀÝg° À è ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ºÀAaPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀPÉÆ̼ÀÄîwÛzÉÝêÉ." 15
5. In other words, the dispute between the eight brothers was resolved by way of a compromise recorded in O.S.No.182/1966 and ever since then each of the parties are in possession and cultivation of their respective shares of the immovable properties, which is also registered. Such of the properties which are taken on lease of which shares by metes and bounds are not effected, it is stated are in joint possession and cultivation of the eight brothers and the produce therefrom equally distributed amongst themselves, after making over the lease rentals (Lavani) to the Landlord.
6. According to the petitioners, since the landlord opposed the mutation entry No.2033 recording the names of all the brothers as joint tenants and cultivators of the lands in question on the premise that the petitioners' father was the sole tenant, that entry was set aside by order dated 30.09.1968 Annexure-E of the Tahsildar, Hangal, which order when carried in Revision Petition 16 bearing RTS RA SR 8/75-76 before the Special Deputy Commissioner was confirmed by order dated 18.10.1975 Annexure-F.
7. On the coming into force of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, 1961, petitioners' father and his seven brothers filed separate applications in Form No.7 under Section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act, 1961, wherein petitioners' father claimed occupancy rights over the lands in question as the sole tenant, while his brothers claimed to have a share in the tenanted land on the premise that it was a joint family tenancy. The Land Tribunal in the first instance by order dated 07.01.1976 conferred occupancy rights jointly on all the brothers, which when called in question in W.P.No.1872/1976 was quashed by order dated 23.02.1976 and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh. On remand, the Land Tribunal by order dated 16.07.2002 conferred occupancy rights on the father of the petitioners which when called in question in 17 W.P.No.28770/2002 was quashed by order dated 01.06.2007 Annexure-G, formulating an issue as to who was/were cultivating the land, in the fact situation as on 01.03.1974 and thereafterwards, to take a decision on Form No.7 independently filed by the father of the petitioners and his brothers. On remand, the Tribunal making reference to the evidence both oral and documentary returned a finding that the tenancy of the lands in question was joint and that all the brothers had a share in the tenanted land as on 01.03.1974 and accordingly by order dated 19.04.2011 Annexure-H conferred joint tenancy rights over all the applicants/brothers. Hence, this petition.
8. Before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that the order cancelling the Mutation Entry No.2033 having become final by the rejection of the Revision Petition filed by the respondents, whereunder, the name of the petitioners' father alone was recorded as the sole 18 tenant of the lands in question prior to 01.03.1974, being a decisive factor, the Tribunal was not justified in conferring joint occupancy rights on the father of the petitioners and his siblings. It was further submitted that the landlord having made a categorical statement that it was the father of the petitioners alone who was the tenant of the lands in question took away the effect of the term in the compromise decree hence it was the petitioners' father alone on whom occupancy rights had to be conferred. The learned Single Judge having examined the order of the Land Tribunal did not find any legal grounds to accept the submission of the learned counsel and declined to interfere with the order of the Land Tribunal by the order impugned.
9. Sri.R.L.Patil, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the light of sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1974, for short 'Act', the 19 judgment and compromise decree in O.S.No.182/66 is rendered nugatory and that the Land Tribunal is duty bound to confer occupancy rights of the lands in question upon the petitioners' father who claims to be the sole tenant of the properties in question prior to land as on 01.03.1974, to the exclusion of his brothers, the respondents herein.
10. It is useful to refer to the relevant portion of the Act referred to by the learned counsel which reads thus:
"1. Short title and commencement.- (1) This Act may be called the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1974.
(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the Third day of August, 1974.
2. Amendment of Section 133 - (incorporated in the principal Act)
3. Disposal of certain pending proceedings, etc-
(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force, the provisions of 20 clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (Karnataka Act 10 of 1962) as amended by this Act, shall be applicable to all proceedings commenced before the date of commencement of this Act and -
(a) pending before any Civil
Court;
(b) pending in appeal or
revision against the
judgment or order of the
Civil Court; or
(c) finally disposed of by such
Courts after the first day of
March, 1974,
as if the said clause as amended by this Act, was in force when the right accrued or the liability was incurred and every such Court shall deal with the proceedings accordingly and any interim or final order or judgment passed by such Court or appellate authority shall be re-opened and the suit or the appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with the said amended clause.21
2. Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any civil court, the Tribunal constituted u/s 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, shall enquire into any claim for registration as occupant made by a person who was a tenant within the meaning of the said Act immediately prior to 1st March, 1974 and who by reason of any such judgment, decree or order has subsequent to the said date been dispossessed of the land of which he was a tenant or is not any way precluded from pleading his tenancy, and direct, if the merits of the case so warrant, that such person be registered, subject to the other provisions of the said Act, as occupant of such land."
11. A perusal of the aforesaid amended provision mandates that notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Civil Court, the Tribunal under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, shall enquire into any claim for registration as occupant made by a person 22 who was a tenant within the meaning of the Act immediately prior to 01.03.1974 and who by reason of any judgment, decree or an order is subsequent to 01.03.1974 dispossessed of the land of which he was a tenant or is any way precluded from pleading his tenancy. Thus, two contingencies are contemplated by the said section for the Land Tribunal to consider the claim of tenancy if, (i) a tenant within the meaning of the Act prior to 01.03.1974 by reason of any judgment, decree or order, has been subsequent to 01.03.1974 dispossessed of the land of which he was a tenant; and (ii) or the tenant is any way precluded from pleading his tenancy.
12. A learned Single Judge of this Court in BHAGIRATHI AMMA VS. LAND TRIBUNAL, UDUPI (1979 (1) KLJ 307) while interpreting sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Act 31 of 1974 observed thus:
" Now, let me examine whether the interpretation of sub section (2) of Section 3 of Act 31 of 1974 as covering the orders and 23 decrees made by the civil courts both before and after 1-3-1974 in accordance with the clear language of that provision renders sub section (1) otiose as is sought to be made out for the petitioners and consequently calls for a restricted interpretation. In my opinion, sub section (1) of Section 3 is made entirely to serve a different purpose and will not be rendered useless by holding that sub section (2) covers civil court decrees made even after 01.03.1974. As can be seen from the language of sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Act 31 of 1974, it is made applicable to all proceedings instituted in a civil court before 22.09.1974 on which date the said Act came into force and it covers the following types of cases in which question tenancy is or was involved: (1) Original suits pending before the civil court, (2) Appeals or revisions against the judgments or orders made by the Civil Courts in a suit which are still pending, (3) suits which have been disposed of by such civil courts in exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction as the case may be after 1-0-1974. The provision made in sub section (1) of Section 3 in respect of the 24 above matters is that sub section (2) of b.133 as amended by Act 31 of 1974 must be deemed to be in force on the dates when interim or final orders were passed in the aforesaid proceedings and it is further provided that every such court should deal with the proceedings as if sub-section (2) of Section 133 as amended by Act 31 of 1974 was in force. In other words, the civil court must refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal and only after the receipt of the finding of the Land Tribunal on the said question, the civil court should proceed to dispose of the case or appeal as the case may be. This is in so far as it relates to suits or appeals which were still pending. In so far it relates to final orders already passed by the civil courts, either in original suits or in appeals, which involved the question of tenancy or any interim order passed in original suits or appeals, against the persons claiming to be tenants, sub section (1) of Section 3 specifically provides that such order shall be re-opened by the concerned court and thereafter, the court shall proceed in accordance with section 133 (2) of the Act. 25 Thus, it may be seen that under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Act 31 of 1974 it is open for the concerned parties to apply for reopening the case and when such an application is made it is obligatory for the civil court to reopen the matter if the case involved a question of tenancy. Similarly, in a case where the case of the party is that he did not raise the plea of tenancy or having raised such a plea, he withdrew the same, on account of ignorance or of fraud played on him by the land owner or that the decree was obtained by taking his consent by misrepresentation or fraud, the party can also have recourse to sub section (1) of Section 3 of Act 31 of 1974 to have the matter reopened and the civil court can order the reopening of the case. These are the purposes for which sub section (1) of Section 3 was incorporated. Hence, it would not be rendered otiose by giving full effect to sub section (2) of that Section."
8. (7) xxxxxx The provision for reopening is a safeguard incorporated by the legislature in addition to sub section (2) of Section 3 of Act 31 of 1974. Therefore, even if the concerned party 26 fail to have recourse to sub section (1) of Section 3 to have the matter reopened or even if the application made for reopening is rejected by the Civil Court, the Tribunal is not bound by any decree or order of the Civil Court and it can investigate the genuineness of any claim of tenancy as also the reasons and circumstances under which the plea of tenancy was not raised or taken up before the Civil Court and can come to its own conclusions. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not hedged by any limitation. xxxx"
(emphasis supplied)
13. In the fact situation, O.S.No.182/1966 filed by one of the siblings of the petitioners' father was for declaration, partition and separate possession, resulting in a compromise decree. Admittedly, in that suit, since the petitioners' father did not plead tenancy rights over the lands in question to the exclusion of his siblings, muchless oppose the claim of the plaintiff for a share in the ancestral joint family properties including tenancy rights, while, the landlord of the tenanted land was not 27 arraigned as a party-defendant, no issue over tenancy was framed. The compromise entered into between the members of the joint family consisting of the petitioners' father and his siblings, emphatically asserted that the elders of the parties were in joint possession and cultivation of the lands in question as tenants and paying the lease rent (Lavani) to the Landlord and if the name of only one of the brothers was recorded in the revenue records, though no dispute may arise between the brothers, nevertheless agreed to continue the cultivation of the land jointly and also pay the rents to the Landlord jointly. The petitioners' father in the reply to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner to recover levy over the paddy grown on the land reiterated the said agreement. Admittedly, it is not pleaded that the compromise decree was obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or otherwise or that subsequent to 01.03.1974 the petitioners' father was dispossessed of the said lands, nor a Misc.application filed 28 in O.S.182/1966 to recall/set-aside the compromise decree.
14. It is true that the mutation entry No.2033 in the revenue register maintained under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, recording the names of all the brothers was called in question by the Landlord before the revenue authorities and when set-aside, the name of the petitioners' father was retained while the names of the brothers deleted on the premise that the Landlord asserted that it was the petitioners' father alone who was the tenant of the lands in question, which order was confirmed by dismissal of the Revision Petition filed by the other brothers. That fact by itself and nothing more is neither conclusive proof of tenancy in favour of the petitioners' father to the exclusion of other brothers nor does it take away the effect of the terms of compromise in O.S.182/66. It is significant to observe that it is not the case of the petitioners' father that he was in any way precluded from pleading his tenancy in O.S.No.182/1966. 29
15. In the circumstances, there can be no more dispute that the requirements of sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Act are not complied with so as to address the petitioners claim of exclusive tenancy rights over the lands in question.
16. Sri.F.V.Patil, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in order to maintain peace in the family, the respondents-legal representatives of the other siblings of petitioners' father are willing to part with 4 acres of land in question i.e., 2 acres in excess of the petitioners' share. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submits that the petitioners are not interested in the said offer but would be interested only if they are given 8 acres of land since in the partition, they have been denied the full extent of their share in the properties. Sri.F.V.Patil, submits that the submission of denial of the full extent of petitioners share in the partition is incorrect and if they so desires may institute a final decree proceeding and secure 30 their share though they have always been in possession and enjoyment of their share of the properties.
17. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the material averments, we find no legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the Land Tribunal and the opinion of the learned Single Judge to call for interference. Appeal devoid of merit is rejected. Sequentially, IAs' I/12, III/12, IV/2012 and V/2012 are rejected as unnecessary.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE jm/-