Writ Petition No. 62337 of 2012 · Karnataka High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 s. 38
Key paragraphs
- Para 1313. The Court is of the view that the status of the petitioner’s mother as on the date of application under Form 2A was required to be considered and it was not considered. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order…
Judgment
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND:
LAND TRIBUNAL, SIDDAPUR, BY ITS SECRETARY, TAHSILDAR, SIDDAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
GANAPATHY DEVA, R/O. SIDDAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
CHIDAMBARA HANUMANTHA JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
RAMACHANDRA VITHOBA NAIK BENGRE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. SIDDAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O/DATED 10/01/2024 PETITION AGAINST R4 IS STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, SIDDAPUR DATED 24.02.2011 IN R.P. NO.23187/02 NO.TNC-DSR-III-45+17 KONDLI VIDE ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15826 WP No. 62337 of 2012 HC-KAR THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.
2. It is noticed that respondent No.2 is a temple and respondent No.3 is the Trustee of the temple and Trustee is duly served.
3. It is also noticed from the order of the land Tribunal at Annexure-E that respondent No.2 herein was respondent No.1 before the land Tribunal and was represented by the present respondent No.3.
4. This petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Siddapur. In terms of the said order, the Tribunal rejected the application in Form No.2A under the Karnataka Land - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15826 WP No. 62337 of 2012 HC-KAR Reforms Act, 1961, seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.85A/5/1B+3A+2B+3B measuring 6 guntas 4 annas.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the mutation entry based on the registered Sale Deed standing in the name of petitioner’s mother would urge that the petitioner’s mother purchased the moolageni rights in property referred to above under the registered Sale Deed dated 12.09.1961. Although the extent of the property is not mentioned in the mutation, the RTC would indicate the extent of the property is 6 guntas 4 annas, out of which, 2 guntas 4 annas is classified as kharab, leaving a balance of 4 guntas. The record of rights would reveal the name of the petitioner’s mother in Column No.12 to the extent of 4 guntas.
The Land Tribunal rejected the application on the premise that the petitioner’s mother is not an agricultural labourer and that her husband had transferred the property - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15826 WP No. 62337 of 2012 HC-KAR in her favour in the year 1981. Based on that, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner’s mother was not eligible for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 4 guntas.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal committed error in taking into consideration the applicant’s holding after her husband transferred certain land in her favour in the year 1981. It is his submission that, under Section 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, relevant period determining holding is the year 1978. In 1978, apart from the 4 guntas of land in question, the petitioner’s mother did not possess any other land. Therefore, the finding that the petitioner’s mother was not an agricultural labourer is unjustified, is the submission.
There is no representation on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15826 WP No. 62337 of 2012 HC-KAR
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-State would defend the impugned order on the premise that petitioner is ineligible to claim grant of occupancy in respect of 4-Guntas of land in the aforementioned property.
The Court has perused the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The finding of the Land Tribunal is that the petitioner’s mother was not an agricultural labourer and she hailed from a rich family is erroneous, as the Tribunal has considered the property transferred to the petitioner’s mother by his father in the year 1981.
The petitioner's mother’s holding as on 1978, which is the requirement under Act of 1961, has not been taken into consideration at all.
The finding of the Land Tribunal is primarily based on the fact that the petitioner has possessed enough land in the year 1981 pursuant to the partition in the family. The Land Tribunal has also concluded that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15826 WP No. 62337 of 2012 HC-KAR descendants of petitioner’s mother have properties and the petitioner is also employed under the Central Government.
Operative part
The Court is of the view that the status of the petitioner’s mother as on the date of application under Form 2A was required to be considered and it was not considered. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 24.02.2011 passed by Land Tribunal, Siddapur at Annexure-E is set- aside. iii. The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration to consider as to whether the petitioner’s mother was eligible to make a claim for occupancy in respect to the petition property in the year 1978 and the cut off date fixed under the Act of 1961. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15826 WP No. 62337 of 2012 HC-KAR iv. All contentions of the parties are kept open. v. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. vi. The Land Tribunal shall issue notice to all the parties to the proceeding and thereafter, hold fresh inquiry as contemplated under law. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP/AM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 — s. 38.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 24 Feb 2011. The bench was ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.