Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Seena Seregara vs Land Tribunal on 22 February, 1984

Poovappa Bangera And Ors. vs The Land Tribunal And Ors. on 20 August, 2004

In the case of Seena Seregara (supra) it is held that a person cultivating the land on lease created contrary to Section 5 before 1.3.1974 is also a 'tenant' under the Act having regard to Amendment Act 1/1979. In the said decision it is held thus, 'As a result of the amendment a person who cultivates any Land contrary to the provision of Section 5 and before 1.3.1974 is also to be regarded as the tenant under the Act. It is therefore clear that the leases that were brought into existence in contravention of Section 5 now stand validated by Karnataka Act 1/1979.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

Revanappa vs Muniyappa (Deceased) By L.R. And Others on 23 March, 1998

In Seena Seregara's case, supra, the lease created was by the owner of the land in contravention of the Land Grant Rules. In such a situation the lease was held valid as obviously the owner of the land was in lawful possession of the land till evicted in accordance with law consequent on cancellation of the grant for contravention of the terms of grant. Kallappa under whom the petitioner claims tenancy had absolutely no power to create the lease being a rank trespasser. Therefore, the decision relied upon would not apply to the circumstances of the case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S R Murthy - Full Document

B S Kallappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 June, 2012

7. The learned counsel for the appellant next relies on the decision of the Division Bench in Seena Seregara v. Land Tribunal ILR 1985 KAR 805 wherein it has been held that if the Grantee leases the land in breach of the condition of non-alienability, the same does not technically render the lease void. This Judgment does not deal with the interplay of the PTCL Act with any other law or enactment. It does not apply to the facts of the present case since it is the grantee himself who has approached the Assistant Commissioner for the restoration of the land under the provisions of the PTCL Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B S Kallappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 June, 2012

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Division Bench in Seena Seregara v. Land Tribunal (ILR 1985 KAR 805), wherein it has been held that if the grantee leased the land in breach of condition of non- alienability the same does not technically render the lease void. This Judgment does not deal with the interplay of the PTCL Act with any other law or enactment.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ningappa Basappa Harijan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 5 October, 2001

5. Further the petitioners have not produced documents to show that the original grant made in favour of Siddappa Hanumanthappa Waddar was cancelled by the Government in exercise of its power under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1989. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that the grant of land in question was cancelled and the land was resumed to Government and therefore it is not a tenanted land and grant of occupancy rights in favour of fifth respondent is bad in law cannot be accepted. The Appellate Authority has rightly placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Seena Seregara v Land Tribunal, wherein it is held that if the grantee leases the land in breach of the conditions of grant, the same does not automatically render the lease of land by him as void. It is further held in the said decision that person cultivating the land contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is also a 'tenant'. In the instant case also, even though the lease created by original grantee Siddappa was contrary to the conditions of grant, since the grant was not cancelled in accordance with law, the tenancy of 5th respondent is lawful. It follows that the occupancy rights granted in favour of the 5th respondent is legal and valid and the prayers sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document
1