SRI KALLAPPA v. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI

#2. SMT. RAMAVVA W/O. KADAPPA NAGANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: H/W,

#3. SMT. SUNITA W/O. SHIVBASU VAGENNAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: H/W, SRI DADU S/O. KALLAPPA SADALAGI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S,

#4. SMT. RANJANNA W/O. LATE DADU SADALAGI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: H/W,

#5. SMT. SUKUMA D/O. LATE DADU SADALAGI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: H/W,

#6. SRI DADU S/O. BANDU SADALAGI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

#7. SMT. AKKAVVA W/O. BAGWAN KENGAUR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

#8. SMT. DRAUPADI W/O. BANDU SADALAGI, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OCC: H/W, ALL ARE R/AT: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. (BY SRI MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB WA No. 100290 of 2022 AND:

#1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.

#2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

#3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

#4. THE TAHASILDAR, GOKAK, TALUK: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102. SRI DUNDAPPA TIPPANNA MAGADUM SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S, SRI MALLAPPA DUNDAPPA MAGADUM SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S,

#5. SMT.KASTURI W/O. LATE MALLAPPA MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. H/W,

#6. SMT. LAKSHMI D/O. LATE MALLAPPA MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. H/W,

#7. SMT. RAJASHREE D/O. LATE MALLAPPA MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. H/W,

#8. SMT. SUNITHA D/O. LATE MALLAPPA MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. H/W,

#9. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. LATE MALLAPPA MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/AT: NEAR C.N. MUDHULAKHOD COLLEGE, GOKAK ROAD, MUDALAGI-591312, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

#10. SRI SHIVANAND S/O. DUNDAPPA MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

#11. SRI VIRUPAKSHI S/O. DUNDAPPA MAGADUM, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB WA No. 100290 of 2022 AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

#12. SRI SHRISHAILA S/O. PARAPPA MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. SRI SADASHIV PARAPPA MAGADUM, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S,

#13. SMT.BHAGYASHREE W/O. LATE SADASHIV MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. H/W,

#14. SRI ABHISHEK S/O. LATE SADASHIV MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

#15. KUMARI. ANKITA D/O. LATE SADASHIV MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. H/W,

#16. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. PARAPPA MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC.H/W, ALL ARE R/AT NEAR C.N.MUDHULAKHOD COLLEGE, GOKAK ROAD, MUDALAGI-591312, TQ.GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.

#17. SRI KALLAPPA S/O. PARAPPA MAGADUM, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. MUDALAGI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591312. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE C/R6; SRI. MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.62039 OF 2009 DATED 30.03.2022 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB WA No. 100290 of 2022 JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent of both counsel it is taken up for disposal.

#2. This intra Court appeal filed u/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 30.03.2022 in W.P. No. 62039/2009 rejecting the petitioners’ challenge to the Land Tribunal order dated 31.08.1979.

#3. Parties to the appeal would be referred to as they stood before the Writ Court. Before the Writ Court, appellants were the petitioners and respondents herein were the respondents.

#4. Heard Sri Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for caveator/respondent no.6 and Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned AGA for respondents no.1 to 4. Perused writ appeal papers.

#5. Petitioners before this Court challenged Land Tribunal order dated 31.08.1979 granting occupancy right in favour of petitioner as well as Dundappa whose LRs are made as parties, - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB WA No. 100290 of 2022 respondents no.5(a to e) to the writ petition, to an extent of 10 acres and 8 acres 32 guntas respectively.

#6. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that Form No. 7 filed by Dundappa, father of respondents no.5(a to e) is in respect of land in Sy. No. 299 whereas the subject matter of the impugned order is Sy. No. 499. Thus he submits that the Tribunal could not have entertained Form No.7 filed by father of respondents no.5 (a to e). Learned counsel would also submit that father of respondents no. 5 (a to e) states that he was in possession of the land in question and was tenant three years prior to 1974. Learned counsel would submit that the Land Reforms Act came into existence in 1965 and he ought to have been tenant since the beginning. Therefore he contends that the order of Land Tribunal and the learned Single Judge requires interference.

#7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni would refute allegations of the appellant and submits that Form No. 7 was sought to be amended in terms of application at Annexure- R2 dated 14.03.1979 and said application was allowed by the - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB WA No. 100290 of 2022 Tribunal in the year 1979 and permitted father of respondents no.5(a to e) to amend Form No. 7 to include Sy. No. 499.

#8. Nextly, learned counsel would submit that for establishing the tenancy the relevant date would be 01.03.1974 and the father of respondents no.5 (a to e) established that he was tenant of the land as on 01.03.1974. Therefore he submits that petitioner’s contention that respondent no.5 ought to have been tenant from 1963 has no merit. Thus he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

#9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only point which falls for consideration is: Whether the impugned order of learned Single Judge requires interference?

#10. We answer the above point ‘in the negative’ for the following reasons.

#11. Before going into the contention of the appellant it is to be noticed that the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Land - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB WA No. 100290 of 2022 Tribunal order dated 31.08.1974 in the year 2022, after more than 33 years. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner and only on the ground of delay and latches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is to be noticed that though Form No. 7 was filed by father of respondents no. 5 (a to e) which is placed on record as Annexure-D initially indicated sy. No. 299 but the same is amended by making application at Annexure-R2 dated

14.03.1979 and the same said to have been allowed permitting the father of respondents no.5 (a to e) to amend Form No. 7 to include Sy. No. 499. It is settled position of law that tenancy is to be established as on 01.03.1974 and if one establishes that he is the tenant of the land as on 01.03.1974, the Tribunal has no other option but to grant tenancy.

#12. In the instant case, father of respondents no. 5 (a to e) established his tenancy as on 01.03.1974. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order of the Tribunal or by the learned Single Judge. Appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly it is rejected. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB WA No. 100290 of 2022

#13. Pending applications also stand disposed in view of disposal of the appeal on merits. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3