BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT v. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

3 SRI MUNISHAMAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4 SRI NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5 SRI THAMANNA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI A G SHIVANNA & ASSOCIATES, ADVS) :2: AND : 1 SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE H R CHOLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O DHANA LAXMI FLOWER STALL CITY MARKET BANGALORE 2 THE LAND TRIBUNAL HOSAKOTE, BY ITS SECRETARY TALUK OFFICE, HOSAKOTE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H S CHANDRAIAH FOR R1, ADV SRI M.KESHAVA REDDY, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.29069/2001 DATED 30.05.2008. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, K.L.MANJUNATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29069/2001 dated 30.05.2008 is called in question.

2. The appellants are the legal heirs of one Chikkamunishamappa who had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of 35 guntas of land :3: in Sy.No.54 of Upparahalli Village in Hosakote Taluk. He had also claimed occupancy rights in respect of 25 guntas in Sy. No.51 of Upparahalli Village and the application filed by him was taken up for consideration by the Land Tribunal. It was the specific case of Chikkamunishamappa that he had taken these two pieces of land as a tenant from one Cholappa under a written lease deed. The Tribunal considering the lease deed produced by Chikkamunishamappa came to the conclusion that Chikkamunishamappa has made out a case for grant of registration certificate in respect of 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.51 and rejected the claim to an extent of 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.54.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal in rejecting the application in regard to 35 guntas of land, an appeal was filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in LRA No.223/1990 and on account of the abolition, the matter stood transferred to this Court in Civil Petition and renumbered as W.P.No.29069/2001. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on the ground that the appellants had not produced any documents to show that they were cultivating 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.54. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. :4:

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the lease deed dated 06.05.1970 produced as Annexure 'C' to the writ petition was not considered by the learned Single Judge and so also by the Land Tribunal. According to him, when two pieces of land in different survey numbers were granted to the deceased Chikkamunishamappa by Cholappa, the father of the first respondent and when the Tribunal has considered the Occupancy Rights in respect of 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.51, the Tribunal could not have rejected the application of the appellants in regard to the remaining 35 guntas of land situate in Sy.No.54 because both the lands were taken by Chikkamunishamappa on lease and the terms and conditions of the lease applicable to both the lands are one and the same. According to him, when the Tribunal has held that the appellants father was a tenant in respect of 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.51 and under no stretch of imagination, the Tribunal could have rejected the application to the remaining extent of 35 guntas. He further contends that the learned Single Judge without considering the lease deed produced as Annexure 'C' to the writ petition in a mechanical way, has dismissed the writ petition. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by us in this appeal is :5: “Whether any error is committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition and whether the appellants have made out a case for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 35 guntas in Sy.No.54 of Uparahalli Village ?”

7. Annexure 'C' is not in dispute. Under Annexure 'C' Cholappa, father of the first respondent has granted two lands to Chikkamunishamappa for cultivation. Annexure 'C' is not disputed and based on the same, if the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in respect of one land, it could not have rejected the application in respect of remaining 35 guntas of land. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Even without looking into Annexure 'C' the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

8. Therefore, we are of the view that an error is committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition. Admittedly, the respondent has not challenged the grant of Occupancy Rights in respect of 25 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.51 of Upparahalli Village. When his case was that both the lands were given on lease and when the Tribunal has considered the case of one of the survey numbers, when the said order has become final, the appellants are entitled for grant of Occupancy Rights in respect of other pieces of land also. :6:

9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Land Tribunal is modified holding that the appellants are also entitled for grant of Occupancy Rights in respect of Sy.No.54 measuring 35 guntas of land in Upparahalli Village of Hosakote Taluk. Accordingly a direction is issued to the tribunal to confirm the occupancy rights in respect of 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.54 of Upparahalli Village. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE. JT/-