SMT. SAKU v. SHEDTHY SINCE DEAD BY LRs
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17178 WP No. 43738 of 2012 C/W WP No. 16138 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 43738 OF 2012 (LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 16138 OF 2012 (LR-SEC 48A) IN W.P.No. 43738/2012 BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. SAKU V. SHEDTHY SINCE DEAD BY LRs 1(A) HARINI B. SHETTY W/O LATE B.P. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 1(B) SMT. VISHAL T. PAI W/O SHRI TARANATH RAI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
Legal Reasoning
It is settled law that it is only those punja lands which are brought into cultivation that can be conferred with occupancy right on the tenant. In light of the admitted position of the witness of the tenant, that the said Sy.No.204/1 was a punja land and trees rooted here have rendered the area incapable of cultivation, the rejection of the claim in Sy.No.204/1 cannot also be found fault with. 18. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition filed both by the landlord as well as the tenant and both are, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 134
Arguments
1(C) SMT. PUNEETHA VASANTH HEGDE W/O VASANTH KUMAR N. HEGDE AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 1(D) SMT. SUCHATA SURESH SHETTY W/O SURESH M. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 1(E) SMT. SHAMEELA MADHAV KAVA W/O MADHAV H. KAVA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17178 WP No. 43738 of 2012 C/W WP No. 16138 of 2012 ALL ARE R/AT KENJA HOSUMANE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-1. 2 . LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN UDUPI DISTIRCT, UDUPI. 3 . SHRI. SUNDAR POOJARI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE KALU POOJARI R/AT SRIDEVI KRUPA KENJA KUTYAR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI .S, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.12.2011 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE LANDS IN SY.NOS. 138:17 MEASURING 0.24 CENTS, 138/2E 0.46 CENTS, 138/16A 0.82 CENTS, 138/6 0.25 CENTS AND 138/1C 0.11 CENTS AND SET ASIDE THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.138/2 MEASURING - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17178 WP No. 43738 of 2012 C/W WP No. 16138 of 2012 0.25 ACRE OF PUNJA LAND OF KUTHYAL VILLAGE, UDUPI …PETITIONER TALUK. IN W.P.No. 16138/2012 BETWEEN: SRI. SUNDAR POOJARI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE KALU POOJARI OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT SRIDEVI KRUPA KENJA KUTYAR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. (BY SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING,BANGALORE-560 001. 2 . LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI REPRESENTEED BY ITS CHAIRMAN TALUK & DISTRICT UDUPI. 3 . SMT. SAKU V. SHEDTHY SINCE DEAD BY LRs 3(A) SMT. HARINI B. SHETTY W/O LATE B.P. SHETTY AGED 75 YEARS 3(B) SMT. VISHAL T RAI W/O SHRI TARANATH RAI - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17178 WP No. 43738 of 2012 C/W WP No. 16138 of 2012 AGED 72 YEARS 3(C) SMT. PUNEETHA VASANTH HEGDE W/O VASANTH KUMAR N. HEGDE AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 3(D) SMT. SUCHATA SURESH SHETTY W/O SURESH M. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3(E) SHAMEELA MADHAV KAVA W/O MADHAV H. KAVA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT KENJA HOSUMANE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI .S, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A TO E)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2011 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, UDUPI VIDE ANNEUREX-H IN SO FAR AS LAND IN SY. NO.204/1 MEASURING 1-00 ACRE SITUATED AT KUTYAR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17178 WP No. 43738 of 2012 C/W WP No. 16138 of 2012 1. Sundara Poojari and his mother Chimmini Poojarthi CAV ORDER filed an application in Form No.7 seeking conferment of occupancy rights in respect of various lands. 2. The Land Tribunal, on consideration of material on record and taking note of admission of landlord proceeded to confer occupancy rights in respect of several lands including the following lands: 1. Sy.No.138/17 2. Sy.No.138/2E 3. Sy.No.138/16A 4. Sy.No.138/16 5. Sy.No.138/1C - - - - - 24 cents 46 cents 82 cents 25 cents 11 cents (wrongly shown as 138/1C, instead of Sy.No.136/16C by the Land Tribunal) 3. The Tribunal, however, rejected the claim in respect of Sy.No.204/1 measuring 1 acre on the ground that it was admitted by the witness of the tenant that it was a punja - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17178 WP No. 43738 of 2012 C/W WP No. 16138 of 2012 land and there was evidence to indicate that this was a place in which jungle trees are rooted and was therefore, incapable of cultivation. 4. 5. This order of the Land Tribunal is challenged both by the landlord as well as by the tenant. The landlord has filed WP.No.43738/2012 in respect of aforementioned five lands only and he has not challenged the conferment of occupancy rights in respect of other lands. 6. Hence, the said writ petition is restricted only to consider whether the Tribunal was justified in granting the aforementioned lands to the tenant. 7. The tenant has also filed WP.No.16138/2012 challenging the rejection of his claim in Sy.No.204/1 measuring 1 acre. 8. It is case of the landlord that the Tribunal could not have granted Sy.No.138/16A measuring 82 cents since the tenant had not claimed the same in Form No.7. 9. Learned counsel for the tenant, however, pointed out that the tenant had claimed a total extent of 1 acre 50 cents - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17178 WP No. 43738 of 2012 C/W WP No. 16138 of 2012 in Sy.No.138/16 and the Tribunal taking note of the survey had granted the following lands in Sy.No.138/16: 1. Sy.No.138/16A – 82 cents 2. Sy.No.138/16F – 25 cents 3. Sy.No.138/16H – 21 cents 4. Sy. No. 138/16C – 11 cents Total – 1 acre 39 cents 10. Therefore, he contends that Sy.No.138/16 was not claimed by the tenant was incorrect. He also states that the Land Tribunal had wrongly mentioned that Sy.No.138/1C measuring 11 cents was being granted, when in fact it was referring to Sy.No.138/16C. 11. It is stated that the claim of the tenant was for overall extent of 1 acre 50 cents in Sy.No.138/16 and the Tribunal had merely bifurcated the same into four aforementioned portions and therefore, the order of the Land Tribunal could not be found fault with. 12. In my view, this assertion of the tenant cannot be found fault with since it is noticed that the Tribunal has merely bifurcated Sy.No.138/16 into four portions and the total - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17178 WP No. 43738 of 2012 C/W WP No. 16138 of 2012 extent of which would be 1 acre 39 cents as against 1 acre 50 cents claimed by the tenant in Sy.No.138/16. 13. An argument was also sought to be advanced by the landlord that the tenant had claimed only 25 cents in Sy.No.138/2E and the Land Tribunal had granted 46 cents. In other words, the Tribunal had granted excess land. 14. Since the Tribunal has taken into consideration the survey sketch and had concluded that the tenant was in possession of 46 cents in Sy.No.138/2E and therefore, he was entitled for 46 cents in said survey number, the order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 15. As far as the claim of Sy.No.204/1 by the tenant which was rejected is concerned, the learned counsel for the tenant contends that the said land was rejected on the ground that it was a punja land though the said land was not actually punja land and there was evidence on record to indicate that jungle trees are rooted in the said land. 16. The Tribunal, on noticing the deposition of the witness of the tenant to the effect that Sy.No.204/1 was a punja - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17178 WP No. 43738 of 2012 C/W WP No. 16138 of 2012 land and he had also admitted that the said land could not be cultivated as the area was full of trees and was a jungle land, held that the tenant would not be entitled to be registered as an occupant. 17.