Writ Petition No. 33850 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6286 WP No. 33850 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 33850 OF 2017 (LR) BETWEEN: SMT. LALITHA BAI W/O LATE SHIVARAM NAIK SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1. VINAYAKA KUMARI D/O LATE SHIVARAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SATHISH KUMAR S/O LATE SHIVARAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. SHASHIKANTH .M S/O LATE SHIVARAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. JAYARAJ NAIK S/O LATE SHIVARAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 5. VINUTHA D/O LATE SHIVARAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 6. SWATHI D/O LATE SHIVARAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6286 WP No. 33850 of 2017 …PETITIONERS 7. SHARATH KUMAR S/O LATE SHIVARAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Legal Reasoning
ALL ARE R/AT H NO.4/64 NEW NO.4/75, RAMPURA VILLAGE ALEVOOR PANCYAYATH UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101. REPRESENTED BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR S/O LATE SHIVARAM NAIK AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF PETITIONER NOs 1 TO 6. (BY SRI. T. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND HEAD QUARTERS ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI-576 101. SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT S/O K. KRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS MANPALLI, KORANGRALPADY VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101. VENKATARAMANA BHAT S/O K. KRISHNA BHAT KRISHNA SADANA MISSION COMPOUND DHARWAD TOWN, DHARWAD SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6286 WP No. 33850 of 2017 4(A) SMT. SHARADA BHAT W/O LATE VENKATARAMANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT KRISHNA SADANA MISSION COMPOUND, 2ND MAIN DHARAWAD (RURAL) DHARAWAD-580 001. 4(B) SRI. KRISHNA BHAT S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT KRISHNA SADANA MISSION COMPOUND, 2ND MAIN DHARAWAD (RURAL) DHARAWAD-580 001. 4(C) SRI. KISHORE BHAT S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KRISHNA SADANA MISSION COMPOUND, 2ND MAIN DHARAWAD (RURAL) DHARAWAD-580 001. 4(D) SRI. KIRAN BHAT S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT KRISHNA SADANA MISSION COMPOUND, 2ND MAIN DHARAWAD (RURAL) DHARAWAD-580 001. 4(E) SRI. VINAY BHAT S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KRISHNA SADANA MISSION COMPOUND, 2ND MAIN DHARAWAD (RURAL) DHARAWAD-580 001. 5. SMT. S.SHAMBHAVI BHAT D/O LATE NARAYANA UPADHYAYA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6286 WP No. 33850 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS SRIRAMPURA, ALEVOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. N.NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. K.N. MAHABALESHWARA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A TO C); SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 01.12.2006 MADE IN APP.NO.69/2008 BY THE KARNATAKA TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU [MANGALURU CAMP]. APPELLATE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) dated 1.12.2016 passed in Appeal.No.69/2008 vide Annexure-A. 2. The subject-matter of this petition is an agricultural land bearing Survey No.140/2A totally measuring 2.23 acres situated at Alevoor Village, Udupi Taluk. In the captioned petition, petitioners are asserting tenancy rights to an extent of 1.12 acres through their - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6286 WP No. 33850 of 2017 father-Shivaram Naik. The primary grievance now canvassed before this Court is that the KAT has passed the impugned order thereby reversing the order of the Deputy Commissioner who has conferred occupancy rights to the petitioners' mother vide order dated 18.5.2005. Petitioners contend that order impugned is against a dead person and therefore, the order needs to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the claim of respondent No.5 is pending consideration to the entire extent pursuant to the remand order passed by the KAT in Appeal No.1218/2007. 4. A closer examination of the records clearly establishes the existence of rival tenancy claims. The petitioners, through their father, assert tenancy rights over an extent of 1.12 acres, whereas respondent No.5 claims tenancy rights over the entire 2.23-acres of land. Meanwhile, respondent No.3, who claims to be the landlord, is aggrieved by the order obtained by respondent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6286 WP No. 33850 of 2017 No.5 without being notified. Respondent No.3 contends that, pursuant to the final decree in FDP No.2/2002, he has been allotted 1.12 acres. Given this allocation, the issue of rival tenancy claims cannot be resolved without affording respondent No.3 an opportunity to be heard. 5. In light of these crucial aspects, this Court finds that the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2) adopted a fundamentally flawed procedure. When multiple claimants assert tenancy rights over the same land, the competent authority is required to consolidate their claims, conduct a joint inquiry, and adjudicate the matter accordingly. However, records reveal that the claims of the petitioners and respondent No.5 were considered separately. While respondent No.5’s claim remains pending before respondent No.2, the occupancy rights previously conferred on the petitioners’ mother have been set aside by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT), which is now under challenge in the present proceedings. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6286 WP No. 33850 of 2017 6. The order under challenge has to go primarily on two counts. Firstly, the order impugned is passed against a dead person and therefore, liable to be set aside. Secondly, the order under challenge is also not sustainable as there is a case of rival tenancy and therefore, petitioners' right to an extent of 1.12 acres cannot be independently enquired into without clubbing the application tendered by respondent No.5. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 1.12.2016 passed in App.No.69/2008 by KAT is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order dated 18.5.2005 passed by respondent No.2 conferring occupancy rights to an extent of 1.12 acres in favour of petitioners' mother also stands quashed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6286 WP No. 33850 of 2017 (iii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to club the applications tendered by both petitioners and respondent No.5. (iv) The Deputy Commissioner shall ensure that respondent No.3 is arrayed as a party in the said proceedings and is also heard in the matter. (v) After securing original records and after hearing all the parties interested, the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner shall proceed to decide the rights of the parties. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE *alb/- List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7