Karnataka High Court
Ninganagouda S/O Chulachanagoud ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2010
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
W.P.NO¢402 }8;'2002
R/O KUNDAPUR
GI RIJAVVA _. ' '
W/ O HANAMANTHAGOUDA GIRIAPPAGOUD_AR"
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/O KULENOOR
TALUK AND DISTRICT' HAVERI, »
(BYSRLMALLIKARJUNC.BASAREISDY;.{$;D\/1) _~_ '~ = V' K
AND:
E.
{NJ
Q4.)
THE STATE OF' KARNATAAKA' --
BY ITS sE:cRB:TAR¥.__'j;~ ;
TO THE DEEPARTMENT'GF=RE?9'E3_NUE._ " .
Ms. BUILDING .. ----
BANGALORE '
THE LA1\'1D' TF<1B;jgN
HAVERL ;;_ ",*Qt
Byws .CH_A1R::»;4 AN _
T112-KA--P'PA .
S / 0' :'r3A'SAPI3.A ':ZVE.N'KA'm>UR
MAJOR' ' _ '_
R,/_}0 KULENOOR
.»'1fALUK AND DISTRICT HAVERI
"----(DE;'CEASED BY"L'.R'S)
, SE\IIfF;.j3r'.Sz'¥\ff,fA;
" -W,' HANUMANTAPPA KATAGI
' AGED AJBOUT 46 YEARS
"R/QAGADI VILLAGE
TQVVAN D DIST HAVERI
_ MUDE3\r'\J'A
" W/O BASEETAPPA KATAGI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O AGADI VILLAGE
: » '
f,:g,...§é
§ 2'
?»>;/5
.; P 13;f1*z_':1,Q'r§i~E1%:;
IIz.Ié..N0;éI'0.2VISf20.02 V'
TQ AND DIST HAVERI
3c. HANUMAWA
W/O RAMAPPA KATAGI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEZIARS
R/O KULENOOR, " ' _
TQ AND DIST HAVERI
305 HANUMANTAPPA _
S /O LATE. TIRI<;AP£PA yENEATAEI?A
AGED AI3DUT"4.0 YEARS,
R/O KULE,NO"OI*;, "
TO AND--v..DI~S'§§HA'?E--RI'=f «. ' V
Se.
W150 GUTT-.AI?PAIIQSAIVIANI
AGED' ABOUTTA6 EEARS _
R/O'I3'2'A0Av_AD1'- _
TQ IIANGAL, DIST 1~U}.R/ERI
' ' ' ' ..RESPONDENTS
(BY,.E;§I\/I'1'I..SAVI'i'EI1AVN.PA.TIL,HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 " _ I. SR2;-IBASxAVARAJ"i\/I.MEKKI, ADV. FOR R3(A~E)) ' 'V"VT}{1:_SI:VPI":?I'ETION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND }Z32'}' ._QFV'"'TAHE C;O'NSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH VIDE ANX, AIDT. 3.10.2002 BY R2 AND ETC.
THIS ~FE.'TITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ',_THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
. O R D E R In this writ petition} the petitioners have prayed for a writ:
the nature Of certiorari IO quash the Order dated 3.1052002 in LRT:OC'F:SR:1'7:Hav<s:I"i paSSed by the Land Tribunal at r?i*§WfiW W.P.NO.4Q2lS[2002 Haveri granting occupancy rights in favour of the 3"? respondent.
2. The subject matter in this writpl' petitlione» Sy.Ne.l08/l measuring 4 acre 34""gu'nta 'land V' measuring l acre 6 gunta situated atliulenoor Village in"
District. One Puttappa \.7enr_l<atap'::irl"~--l(for ljshortn Puttappa) filed Form b(?f{',1<Q\:\\W}/1§".,Tl«fl'K%/t1f1al.. grant of occupancy rights in question. During the pendency of Vlland Tribunal, the 33113?" PUtt§1I5L';a.._i'r1l.:j'§--lle--v..yVe::lrAfter the demise of Puttappvpa-,---Vhis"~h.rdii3i;e.r Basappa (for short T irkappa) -legal representative and contested the proceeifinlgs. _'l;l1t3"'ff_}~b'uI1al vide order dated 3.1.1979 rejected 'From «aggrieved by this order of Tribunal, .'l'irtléappa:.ap_proaChed this Court in W.P.No.l1-453/1983 and lthe'.s_;:rne be allowed on 123891983 and the matter was . rernhandedi tdthe Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with ,i:lav.e'rafterproviding an opportunity to both the parties to adduee the'ir°levidenee and of being heard. After remand, both the "parties adduced their evidence before Tribunal and produced '§§§§""gK' /' W.P.NO.§?G2:1-8_d/72002 same deeurnents. New, under the' "imp~ugnedn"0_rde:<;; the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in zfavotzr vet', th:e~_.vVi3?€i_ resp0ndent~Tirka1:>pa. Aggrienreddjj./{A thisirnpt":gned"~erder":Qf the ' V Tribunal dated 3.10.2002. as per rfixznexnre-A,'vt--he.~hetitieners are before this Court. T - _
3. During the pendency this'trgfri_t.--~petition, the 2nd petitioner died;"ariiéx:,:'petit.jon.er";Nest3;' 5 are treated as legal represe-ntati'§zes""ef L'/;T}<i' respondent. Similarly, during Writmfietition, the 3rd respondent died andtnsalegalVrenre»se.nVt'at'iLv'es are brought on record.
4. ':Heavrd"the arguments on both side and perused entire Writ pape'rs.r_V b.a_'-L, 'Sri. Ma1ii'1{eérjun Cs Basareddy learned counsel for _th'efirst]y contend that, on earlier occasion before the Land _Tr;1h_t1na1, the deceased Tirkappa made a statement en 'r__3.1.19'*?v9";.as per Annex.ure~D stating that, petitioners are V'e1,t1Vt{v~;«1ting the lands in question for the last 1520 years. The d Tribunal Without considering the statement of deceased 3"? respondent passed the impugned order granting eeeupaney W.P.NO.4U2.1'8.fi2'i}t]2 B 6 : , -_ '. ' rights in his favour and therefore the same is decline to accept this contention. p . M
6. '1' he deceased 3%' respondent.p'1'1rke1ppe*--.du3'i:;g fife time ffled writ petition be'foi*'e :his§s'iAV.V'e¢ur}; W.P.No.11453;'1983 questioningi°E1_ie ordef'-of A i"1'i'ib1ii:t1a1 dated 3.1.1979 rejecting his =1 5153/ 19893 Tirkappa stated the eircumpstaneest1ie__i.Vstatement dated 03.01.1979 Anné:;1ji'e»[5,_ 'o1ote:i'n.e_dV:iVfiand the reievant averrnent in V
-------- »~:h~e_f fan"iiZy----.of'§ the petitioner was eaitivating'--"z'»he2'Eandsu'inquestion as a tenant on 03.03.1974 gldestbrother of the petitioner appliea"~.'fortVtiv:e i'gra~rit of occupancy rights as a V.»'.i--:Z1/fanager oj"'--the__joint Hindu family. The hearing of the fixed on 3~Z~1979. On that day the to the Tribunal and requested for a i"ishort"vaj_djournment as he wanted to produce some doeantents to substantiate his claim for grant of _ ocoapancy rights. Further} the 4?" respondent who is it x _ _ iflfhe poiitical r'ivaZ of the petitioner asked the petitioner to put his signature on the white paper informing the petitioner that the case has been adjourned. The petitioner put his signature on the white paper and twee 2,3} W.P.NO.40218/2002 he was informed that the next of hearing wilt be communicated to him, by issuing 0: fresh Accordingly, the petitioner went to his natioe.¢xzolt;:¢«§:g,lt:lV:
However the brother of the 3"? respondent":%taVntel'lQ Boctdabasappa S/ o Channabasappa _ collusion with the 4?'? responifilenillfireatedl_a._.:
statement said to have been thepetitioneitélll' on the blank paper on whi<_:h-..t_he 4??" taken the signature of the xp'etitioVner.l ."l'7b£il'll't€?"i§th€y have falsely writ:':en.,_on r*s:aiah"p.aperVVthat the petitioner has left thee."co.r'Ztii3'a:tio_n 15 to 20 years back.*-- It tilibsolutely the petitioner?_"lhd;;f.t ct if « statement before the left cultivation of the lcmdst. to 20 years back.
Farther f the brother of the 3rd respondent' the 4th respondent who is the political 'rizfalil ofithe petitioner. It is submitted the petitioner is not at all stated before the in he has left cultivation. And also he has . if iteoerhstatelol. that the owners are cultivating the land Further he has never stated before the that his application should be rejected. T his 1' false statement has been ooncopted by the 4"' l'"responder'tt at the instance of the brother of the 3" respondent. "
W.P.NO.40218f20(}2
7. This Court afiowed. W=PtNo11453;/83AV.«y'i:ie'~uo:ti'er dated 12.8.1983 and remanded the matter to fresh disposal in accordance with-'tawtaftger _.oro<zidir~1--g; an opportunity to both the parties of addtxching evioence being heard. Though ,_in._Vi't.:s"'*._:or<ie'r in"
W.P.No.11453/83 do notonlaket-*1*e:fe:ren~cee w'it'h'vreg.a}rd to the circumstances under of 3" respondent was taken as Zfribunal to record fresh evidence 15;» of the Tribunal.
'I'herefore,. ihto service the statement of Tirkafxpa 'Annexure--D.
8. -. Learned" ._jcouns'e}4for the petitioners secondly contend_Vthat;'th_e original tenant Puttappa Basappa filed Form Sh'"No.7'-i...heife.rethe 'Tribunal in individual capacity and not family of himself and his brothers.
The:efore,_ eyonciusion of the Tribunal that Form No.7 was hqfiled an.r:1fi'o_nVheha1f of joint family is illegal and perverse. On of Form No.7 filed by Pu/ttappa specifies that he has ' stated that there are 3 shares in respect of the lands owned by them. 1 This statement made in Form No'? corroborates with /»''"'E\ ere"
;' 3 W.P.NO/102 1852062 the evidence of deceased Tirkappa. The revenue entries in respect of the iand in question after the demise of 4l3?u*tt_ap_pa came to be entered in the name of Tirkappa representatives of Puttappa gave no objection 'i'he= .. suggestion put to respondent xViti=:A3ess---hf} petitioner also goes to showfithat No.f?»"£x;a,s_vifile;di°t:;§,f"fi, Puttappa on behalf of joint family».E1'h._erefor'e[itis elear that, Form No.7 was filed by for aubenefit his brothers who are H:1€1'nb€f$,Qfj'QlI1lZ_ family. ..
9. froirndithe that, after demise of Puttappa; .an_di another brother by name Basavannappavhat.?e-subrnitted' their no objection to enter the name of deceasedi'3fd're"s.nondent in the revenue records. In the eiijeunistaneiesn finding of the Tribunal that original tenant Puitappa 'fi.le«:vl:i'i:?orrn No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect oiland for his benefit and also for the benefit of his
-- brothersii i 1' "iind no justifiable ground to interfere with the Viliixidingsivof the Tribunal.
2' gag"
W.PlNOi4Q2l8f2002 : l0 :
10. It is not in dispute that the name of originaitenant Puttappa finds a place in the RTC from the "to l9'73~74 cultivating the lands in question as'i'<it_enapn.tii'iiiiTihie petitioners in their evidence before tlr1iem'il'r'ihtirial <:4ofi':¢:;eeei'.~:fiaot about 15 years back the tenant tfacated and over the possession of lands in question. 'l*his--.advrniisVsiio'n in the evidence of petitioners witness theifaetithat at one point of time Puttappa in question as tenant. There pvisigno to prove the theory of lands in question.
There that land in question was taken Therefore the finding of the Tribunal that as on original tenant Puttappa was in oceupatior: as tenant of the land in question is supported the eivideneeviiandppiilafind no justifiable ground to interfere with the same: ' T. 'leis also seen from the record that the land _.s1tu,a_tediii'n Kulenoer villager Petitioners admit that they are e._re.siCEents of Kankanawadi village, Shiggaon Talul: which is a " -distance of 40 krns. The petitioners witness admit that their
5./*"'°§~¢.tv&:~'i"'"'"