IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF' OCTOBER 2o::0,%
PRESENT S "
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.G.SABHA§HiTpV:~--~:: if _
AND
THE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE:;S;VfNAG;ARATHN.rg'* J
w.A.NO.2873_/20
BETWEEN
1.
SMT. LALITHAMMA . _
W /O LATE K. SATHYANARA'YANA' SASTRY
D/O A LAKSHM1NARS'1M}iA'-SAS';:RY ' a _
AGED 89 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFIL ' _
No.27 OUT HOUSE, WA*1"S"1'REET_ '
BULL TEMRE.E'ROAD=._ g "
BAS " ._
BAN{3ALORE'.;§ 560 076:...__ _ -
. V1SHW;ANA'rHA"«. ="
S/O LA'f"E_4A.I,AKSHM'L4\RASIMHA SASTRY
AGE?) 68 "
02:0: P'ENSIO§€.ER _
RESIIDENTS OF NOI1105
» j'«1.STH CROSS, BTM
" 2_NDR.S*mOE:,A.._1s'? PHASE
~. I3A1\:GAi;O_RIa;':; 560 076.
. . APPELLANTS
-- ' x.{BY SRi._S .'S.SRIPATHY AND SRLKBHASKAR, ADVSJ
MUNIYAPPA
S/O BAYYANNA
AGED 54 YEARS
OCC SERVICE.
2.
. :35 .
!'~J
GOPALAPPA
S / O BAYYANNA
AGED 51 YEARS
OCC SERVICE
NAGARAJA
S / O BAYYANNA
AGED 49 YEARS
OCC SERVICE
LOKESH
S /o BAYYANNA
AGED 46 YEARS
occ PETTY BUSINESS
RESPONDENTS '1.T0 5; AR' R:ES_IDIN.G ' "
AT VADARA ‘
KALLUBALU P,o;..JI_QA1.\;_1.._;1«oB£’;1 ,_
ANEKAL TALLT_K BANGALORE DIST. ‘
5621Q6..-_ .
A. S}~IiXfA£S£i1&N’EUXRA SHASTRY
S /0 LATE A LAKSHjMIN;Ar¢AS1MHA SHASTRY
AGED SIYEARS; _Oc:(:~- NI;
N0.342. UPS’§’}\IR.S, 22ND”‘MA1N ROAD
B’IfM 2ND STAGE, 181′ PHASE
” _ BAN:G1’,_d:-ORE W 560′”G”76.
” .A3:i£«:KAL”‘TALIJK
ANEKAL, ’23;:m’GAL0RE DIST.
562- 10-6. -.
REP E§Y’§TS CHAIRMAN
; OF’ KARNATAKA
RESVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDINGS
% A BANGALORE — 560 001.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS
{BY SR1. D. VIJAYKUMAR AGA. FOR R6 81 R7}
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED (3/8 4 OF THE
KARANATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO. 18655/2007 {LR} DATED 29/O6/2010.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FO¥§.PR.i§:L£M–ii¥’AR’.f:”
HEARING THIS DAY, v.o.sABHAHii’ J’;;’~1)E:LrV:2R’_1«:1},,fI’H1«;
FOLLOWING: H
Junomg TL
This appeal is the petitioners in
W.P.No.18655/2007 order dated
29.6.2010 Whereiri. mg Vtdegg~ned~1i,’*-g1pg1′;e xddtidge of this
Court the order dated
23.9.19£’3′}u Tribunal, Anekal, which
was chaiiengedvAinthedwrit petition and the RTC register
by.__the ‘parties couid not be relied upon to
1 as the RTC shows two different entries
1 in two different documents, which are issued by the
Joffice of” the revenue authority. Respondent No.5
t._a;;V)peared before the Tribunal and gave a, statement
“recognizing grant of occupancy rights and this Court
Cannot interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal
on 23.9.i98i in the writ petition, which was filed after
twenty five years from the date of passing of the orders
i.e,ir1 2007. The appellants herein -f _ A4
W.P.No.l8655/2007 challenging the order
the Land Tribunal dated 23.9. the it
land in respect of which the
claimed was a joint familyll
No.5 could not have appeared”‘beferle”the ;l’ri’bun§al and
consented on behalf of members of
the joint of the other
members other members of
the joi;it”liarni.ly including the writ
petitioner.lThe for the appellants relied
upon _ the decision lofllthis Court in the case of
._vs. H Tribunal Nelamangala &
°ot’h.e§-5 1979 (2) KLJ 330 and therefore, the
ordet:._ppasscd.f~by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
pp p 2… learned Single Judge after hearing the
appearing for the parties by order dated
tjj’pvVV.<,a9..ele.2o1o held that respondent No.5 was served with
" lnotice. He has appeared before the Tribunal and filed
an affidavit consenting the grant of occupancy right in
favour of the tenant. There was no material to show
that it was not joint family property and thereforedno
ground is made out to interfere with the _
land Tribunal after a lapse of twenty-five""3*.é'a19s=:and "
accordingly, dismissed the writ
the same the writ petitioner flied' this
3. We have heard the lpealriaedi__co1insel_appearing
for the appellant.
4. The learned counsel:atpp.e’aring the appellant
veherneintlyv thdellllproperty in respect of
occupancy right’ Sy. No.9 / l measuring
3.33 acres tualong..’.WithV3’other lands situated at Jodi
“t’JgiganiVV””Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore
llltflistrict granted as per Section 10 of the
Mysore {13ers’onal and Miscellaneous) Inains Abolition
l9z54L:was a joint family property and respondent
could not have consented on behalf of other
members of the joint family and since all the members
3′ of the joint family including the petitioners were not
notified, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is illegal
if :3/-‘f
6
and is liable to be set aside. In support of his
contentions he relies upon the case of Anjanappd’…as.,
Land Tribunal & Others reported in 1979(2) .
wherein this Court has laid down a,.eornbii1ed” of ”
S.4~8A(2) and R19 of Karnataka
1981, wherein property is’ll_Aj’0i.nt farriily a
member of the joint farnily canno’t._eonsent”onA behalf of
joint family is the as confined
under the Land Reforms'”Aet;:V; ‘ V _
5. The learne:d_._C}oVferim1ent Advlooate appearing for
respondents that the order passed by
the learnedfiinglle justified and he has made
…o.avai1alole l’~original-Vtlfeeords and respondent No.5 has
A”:’produVced_v ‘ma.te1<1'_al before the Tribunal showing that he
was the owner of the property and also made a
'statenient.,reeognizir1g the occupancy rights. No material
produced to show that the property was joint family
4l"~-___""l'.prAoperty. Hence. the order passed by the tribunal
V V "cannot be interfered.
6. At this stage we have given careful
consideration to the contentions of the learned
appearing for the parties and scrutinized ~
records made available by the __vlea_1_fned'” “‘
Advocate.
7. On scrutinizing the :’nat_erial’0n record;.ii.t.,_Vc’o1;ild
be seen that respondent No.5 vvas:_arrayed owner
of the land in the applicat.iyonp respondent-
tenant before thP”TTlbuI1’al’ resgoondents 1(A] to
MD] are LRs.–al;:14dhva:s__sitated that is the absolute
owner oli’B:iiigi’p’ura and the names of the
applicant i”s,__’enter’e_dlin” cultivation column. In the
case. the sarr1’e-,dt_h_eA.land Tribunal has proceeded to
..tuhe’o:eCu_pancy right and Form No.30 by order
The RTCs produced would show that
the entries Inade are in favour of both the parties in two
“RTC produced and there is no material to
____”‘l’.’substantiate the contention that the property belongs to
fljoint family. It is clear in absence of any Conclusive
material to show that the affidavit filed by respondent
No.5 before the Tribunal after he was served notice and
‘-i*3:>€>
the application filed by Byanna was false and the
property in which occupancy right was claimed___ in
respect of Sy.No.9/ I measuring 3 acres 33 guntasj
joint family property.
8. The question of issuing
members of the joint family__ would’ not.V»’aris:e.
admittedly it is clear from the._:originaI- records that
respondent No.5 is array_e:d_a.s has appeared
before the Tribunal claimi«ngf-theoccupancy’ right in his
favour.
9. View laches in filing the writ
petition which vtrvasiifiled the year 2007 challenging the
“(m1¢rfii–§{f ‘l’:ibunaimdlated 23.9.1981 the learned Single
to interfere with the order dated
23.9.’1__98 lv;’:Xccordingly, We hold that the order passed
if the fribunal is justified and does not suffer from any
.error-or illegality as to call for interference, in exercise of
if ‘ Wri-‘t jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly. appeal is dismissed.
-*3
Originai records shail be returned to the
Government Advocate after obtaining acknowiedgemeny
SS