Writ Petition No. 29694 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.29694 OF 2015 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI. SOUJANYA UPADYAYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE DR. VASUDEVA UPADHYAYA NO.287, KARKALA MOTORS, TELLAR ROAD,KARKALA-574 104, UDUPI DISTRICT. (BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN LAND TRIBUNAL, KUNDAPURA-576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT. 3. SRI. UMESHA POOJARY AGED ABOUT YEARS S/O LATE BOODA POOJARY, ANNAD TOTA, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 NADSALU VILLAGE, PADUBIDRI, UDUPI TALUK - 576 204. (BY SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. S K ACHARYA ADV. FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE INDIA, PRAYING TOCALL FOR THE IN LRY-114-364-484-TRI-82-330-81-82, 79-80 CONSTITUTION OF RECORDS DATED 27.12.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by one Sri.Soujanya Upadyaya who is the son of Shakuntala Upadyaya, who is in turn the daughter of P.H.Raghuram. 2.
Legal Reasoning
In other words, Sri.P.H.Raghuram's grand-son has presented this writ petition challenging an order passed by the Land Tribunal on 27.12.2011, by which the Land Tribunal has conferred occupancy rights on the tenant—Booda Poojari through his legal representatives in respect of the land bearing - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 Sy.No.12/11A measuring 00-37 cents and the land bearing Sy.No.14/14 measuring 01 acre 25 cents situated in Nadsalu Village of Udupi Taluk. 3. It is the simple case of the petitioner that Booda Poojari—the tenant had claimed occupancy rights only in respect of Sy.No.14/14 measuring 00-40 cents as per his Form No.7 (a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'A') and the Land Tribunal had also granted him only 00-40 cents by the initial order dated 24.09.1981, but subsequently on remand, the Land Tribunal has entertained an application for amendment and has enlarged the claim in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.14/14 from 00-40 cents to 01 acre 25 cents. 4. It is contended that the amendment application was essentially made in the year 2011, much beyond the period prescribed under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 Act') for filing Form No.7 and hence, the same could not have been entertained. 5. In other words, it is contended that an application even to amend Form No.7 ought to have been filed within the time stipulated and any application made thereafter would have to be rejected only on the ground that it is time bared. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant, Sri.S.K.Acharya, on the other hand, contends that Booda Poojari—the tenant had challenged the order of the Land Tribunal by which Booda Poojari was only conferred with 00-40 cents of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.14/14 in W.P. No.21619 of 1992 and this Court had allowed the writ petition on 14.09.2001 and had remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a specific direction to the Tribunal to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.14/14. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 7. It may be pertinent to state here that the order in respect of the other survey numbers may not be germane to the subject matter of this writ petition and hence, the same are not considered. 8. At paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the aforementioned order, it has been recorded as follows: "8. In the instant matter, there are none to oppose the petitioner. As argued by the learned counsel for petitioner Sri. A.Ananda Shetty, the original owner Sri. Raghurama Rao had shown as Opponents before the Land Tribunal and that he had no objection for grant of 1 Acre 25 guntas in Sy. No. 14/14 of Nadsal Village in the name of the petitioner as per the survey report. As a matter of fact, there was a statement to that effect before the Land Tribunal by him that on 19-04-1984, copy at Annexure-C to the original writ petition. But interestingly, in passing the impugned order dated 24-09-1981, the Land Tribunal had granted only 40 cents out of the said survey number. Sri Shetty also pointed out that the petitioner had also - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 sought for an amendment of Form No. 7 filed by him. 9. That being the position, I feel that the said order passed by the Land Tribunal is liable to be quashed insofar as the same related to the item of the land of 40 Cents in Sy.No.14/14 and the matter has to be remanded for consideration of the claim of the petitioner insofar as the same related to the said the land in Sy.No.14/14 of Nadsal Village and furthermore, insofar as the same is related to grant of 37 cents of land in Sy.No.12/11A possessed by Sri. Kampara Poojari, (Moolgenidar) the respondent No.6 herein, is also liable to be quashed." 9. As could be seen from the above, this Court took the view that the grant of only 00.40 cents in respect of Sy.No.14/14 would be untenable, since the landlord himself had conceded that the tenant was in possession of 01 acre 25 cents of land in Sy.No.14/14. 10. On remand, the tenant, through his legal representatives, made an application for amending - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 Form No.7 and the Tribunal has accepted this request and has proceeded to confer occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.14/14 to the extent of 01 acre 25 cents, taking into consideration that the landlord himself had categorically stated that the tenant was in possession of 01 acre 25 cents. 11. Sri.K.Chandrakanth Ariga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contends that the Land Tribunal could not have considered conferring occupancy rights in respect of any extent over and above 00-40 cents and the Land Tribunal could not have relied upon any admission to pass the impugned order. 12. The learned counsel, Sri S.K.Acharya, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is estopped from even challenging the order of the Land Tribunal basically because the landlord i.e., Raghurama Rao had given a categorical statement that he had no objection for conferring occupancy rights in respect - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 of 01 acre 25 cents and furthermore, in Writ Petition No.21619 of 1992, when this Court had recorded a finding that Raghurama Rao had no objection for grant of 01 acre 25 cents, the legal representatives of Raghurama Rao, though were parties to the order, did not challenge the said order and have accepted the order passed by this Court. 13. It is contended that the petitioner being the grand- son cannot be permitted to get over the acquiescence to the order of the Land Tribunal and the order of this Court by being permitted to file a writ petition in the year 2015. 14. It is no doubt true that Form No.7 filed by Booda Poojari did indicate that he was claiming only an extent of 00.40 cents. However, it must be noticed here that Raghurama Rao, who was described as an advocate, in the memo that is found in the records of the Land Tribunal, has made a statement in the following terms: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 "LRY. 114/364/tr 1/82. Between : Booda Poojary : Applicant And : Raghurama Rao B.A., B.L., Advocate Karkala : Opponent The Opponent above named begs to state as follows:- The applicant has submitted a declaration claiming registry of his name as occupant of the land in respect of the plot comprised in Sy.No.14/14 Nanja measuring about 1.25 acres of Nadsal village, Padubidri belonging to me. It is true that the applicant is enjoying the said land as chalageni tenant under me and as such, I have no objection whatsoever to grant occupancy right in favour of the applicant, in respect of the above plot. Hence, necessary orders may kindly be passed in the interest of justice. Date 24-9-1981 Camp - Karnataka Sd/- Opponent. " 15. This consent letter would clearly indicate that Raghurama Rao—the landlord clearly and candidly stated that Sy.No.14/14 measuring 01 acre 25 cents - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 was in the possession and enjoyment of Booda Poojari and he was a Chalageni tenant and Raghurama Rao had no objection whatsoever to grant occupancy rights in favor of Booda Poojari. 16. In light of this clear admission by Raghurama Rao, the grand-son of Raghurama Rao cannot be permitted to contend that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is illegal. 17. It may also be pertinent to state here that the brother of Raghurama Rao made a statement with the Tribunal in the following terms: "PÉÃ¸ï £ÀA.J¯ï.Dgï.ªÉÊ : 114:364:nDgïL:82/81-82 ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ: 1. PÁr±ÉnÖ, (¨sÀƪÀiÁ°PÀ¼À UÀAqÀ) 2. ¨sÉÆÃdgÁªï(¨sÀƪÀiÁ°PÀ£À vÀªÀÄä) vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ : ZÀAzÀÄ ±ÉnÖ ªÀÈwÛ : ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 70 ªÁ¸À ¸ÀܼÀ: £ÀqÁì®Ä UÁæªÀÄ : : : : ºÀAiÀÄVjªÀAiÀÄå ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ 45 £ÀqÁì®Ä UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåªÁV ºÉüÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ :- ¢£ÁAPÀ :- 24.9.81 £ÀqÁì®Ä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA 14/14 1.25 ¸ÉAmïì 14/5A 0.20¸ÉAmïì, EzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀmÁÖ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DfðzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ UÉÃt PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10-15 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ®Æ F - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CfðzÁgÀ£À ¸Áé¢üãÀ C£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÉÛ. CfðzÁgÀjUÉ C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä £ÀªÀÄä DPÉëÃ¥ÀtÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. N¢ PÉý¹ gÀÄdĪÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸À»/- ¦.ºÉZï.¨sÉÆÃdgÁªï ¸À»/- PÁr ±ÉnÖ " 18. As could be seen from the said statement, Bhoja Rao also admitted that Booda Poojari was in possession of 01 acre 25 cents in Sy.No.14/14. 19. The tenant—Booda Poojari made a statement in the following terms: "PÉÃ¸ï £ÀA.J¯ï.Dgï.ªÉÊ : 114:364:nDgïL:82/81-82 ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ : §ÆzÀ ¥ÀÆeÁj vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ : £ÉêÀÄÄ ¥ÀÆeÁj ªÀÈwÛ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì ªÁ¸À ¸ÀܼÀ : : : ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ 55 £ÀqÁì®Ä UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåªÁV ºÉüÀÄvÉÛãÉÉ:- ¢£ÁAPÀ: - 24.9.81 £Á£ÀÄ rPÉègÉõ£ïÀ¤£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ zÁªÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÉðAiÀÄgÀgÀÄ £À£Àß C£ÀĨs ÀªÀzÀAvÉ C¼ÀvÉ - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄAvÉ C£ÀĨsÀªÀ«gÀÄvÉÛ. F d«Ää£À C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÁV PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. ¸À»/- §ÆzÀ ¥ÀÆeÁj " 20. As could be seen from the statement of Booda Poojari, he stated that a survey had been conducted on the basis of his possession, and he should be granted land that he was found to be in possession of in the said survey. 21. It is to be borne in mind that this statement should be read in the context of the statement given by the landlord, notwithstanding the fact that Form No.7 was filed only in respect of 00-40 cents. 22. If both the landlord as well as the tenant were in ad idem regarding the extent of land that the tenant was in possession, the filing of Form No.7 would have to be viewed from that context and not in a hyper technical manner. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 23. It is also to be kept in mind that the provisions of Section 48-A(6) of the Act does permit an amendment of an application in Form No.7 for good and valid reasons. 24. In a case where both the landlord and the tenant are in unison and it is agreed that the tenant was in possession of 01 acre 25 cents, in my view, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the application filed for amendment. 25. It is to be borne in mind that in the ultimate analysis, the objective of the Act is to ensure that the tenant who was in possession of the land as a tenant is conferred with the occupancy rights. If that objective is kept in mind, the mere wrong mentioning of the extent in Form No.7 should not be viewed in a very technical and strict sense. 26. In light of the fact that the landlord and tenant both conceded before the Land Tribunal that the tenant - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 was in possession of 01 acre 25 cents and this Court as well as the Land Tribunal have accepted this particular plea, which has resulted in the impugned order being passed in favour of the tenant, there is no infirmity which necessitates the interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 27. It must also be kept in mind that the legal representatives of Raghurama Rao, who were parties in W.P. No.21619 of 1992, had accepted the order of this Court which took note of the fact that Raghurama Rao had conceded for conferring of the occupancy rights in respect of 01 acre 25 cents and the petitioner who is the grand-son of the landlord cannot be permitted to get over the concession given by his predecessors-in-title i.e., his earlier generation, who are the direct lineal descendants of Raghurama Rao and be permitted to contend that the order of the Land Tribunal is illegal. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13940 WP No. 29694 of 2015 28. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the
Decision
petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. 29. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54