IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT Dated this the 7"' day o_f1\/larch, zoo?' 5 .._j .»_. A' Writ Petition 16430 2220:-;v3 (L3,: ' zap:-:5 Dayananda, 4'2 yafa.~ 1 9 ?\¥a1-an nun £41 um 'CC LVIUIUUJ III-III' 'IT :13 3 SmtKarnaja, « 4~ Ramwsn~s % 5 Vighw;'mati£,_ y:a_j_ _% M % All of Pa¢idu"Sher9_gs§r And xffa *?iriat%1:1ix'3haya' _ Kuiijllr Dsasicast, P(m_t_Fanizoor '-.Udupi'1"' __ ' --~ Petitioners (By Sri 55: Bhat, Adv. )=,_ A ~ ..... ' ' 1.» . ~ fa. Tribunal, Udupi Taluk . '- V' , E-_!'lrV:}n'V":npVI~7t-nfvfifllit «. -. 'xxx' 1h:I s.fBMu1vI.an_y _ .-saggieevi G Shetfy "v'v':'o Iagafmafn sherry- " Panizoor, Udupi Taluk I £443 74 " Tara s Shetty D/o Appi Shedthi r R/a Panizoor, Udupi Taluk "Respondents (By Sri S Prakash Shetty, Adv. for C/'R2; Slri Hadion Qhivnnanflnnna (1-P 'Far I? I 3 I0'! u...-.5... ....... -----,.r.-, U. -..- ..--, JV This Writ Petition "is filed unde Art.226i227 of the -Constitution .r 00 I' nravigm fig nimnh flu; Md dated ll 1 9, I'''''-'''' '9 'I"""""' "' """""" """"' """"""""""' Tribunal, Udupi Taluld the foiiowing: orznaiepv -- a!'..'!§!§'.!."£'- C by it'ee7I..«:«..-id. ' This Writ petition having been reserved for " ._ Petitioners have sought Vfor__." the up Tribunal, Udupi dated 11.3.2003 -- C. ~ It is the case of the Narasi Baa had filed application in toflthei ieiétentiiofj_'1.Vl_il_V:acres in Sy.No.l33l5 of Belapur --a__el§algeni~tenant and was-paylirig R. 10/- as Though the said land was a it it it i. ° _ yfligir m-nnrl father and an -..a..... . n -- w - - - -.....--m ire'-'ore the Land ""---ri'Vur1aL spot inspection was conducted and as the » :'rep0it,:Naras:i"Bai was in possession and cultivation of theland. Afier ~. eiiquiry, Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Narasi Iiai. '.I:'hei*e'aiter, matter was challenged by the respondent; in a writ A. petition; ii Meanwhile, there was establishment of the appellate authority. it pendency of the matter before the appellate authority, the appellate authority came to be abolished and thereafter, civil petition was filed which was later converted into writ petition. By order dated-19.8.1997, J?" WP 30504/1992 was allowed and matter was remanded back to :tiie.Land Tribunal. Alter remand, the Land Tribunal did inspection as directed by this Court but, proceeded to disiniss K V' by the petitioners by its order at armeXItre,'C,"VAeeordiir1g.;to_thepetitioners, they are the original applicants and are in ofithe 1an(i:i~;eing_ ageved -3; the ...der of disrnissai-._of~~thei. appli.Jati_:t, I:!?tey"'a'_re' bet' e" Counsel forth__e respondent along with some documents, petition. It is stated, petitioners,vhavefirnade: In the first place, the petitiorrers._..pri-ginal landlord as respondent and by showingilsorneone"else.,as owner, obtained an order of grant as such, there was'-no noticelto the respondent. Thereafter, the matter was ., pcoittestizii. It is also stihniitted the petitioners have not produced any RTC iistanding ilileirinarne to the effect they are cultivating the property and V petitieheiés, Narasi nan .
also flG,~g~1}t*.:% recerpts are produced “vet-. as pe. the s.a.erae..t ..t he’
‘h_ : . ._.. _. .1-
it V,Shamaraya Shetty ‘but, he is not the owner of the land in question.
l§Further_, alter remand by this Court, the Tribunal having recorded the
statement of both the parties, after considering the RTC and other
material, following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, came
.i’ It . /
to the conclusion that the land in question is not an agricnlntrsl. as
the mother of the petitioners, was only a she:_cet1id nit tie
granted any occupancy rights. V,E_\{en
specifically stated that the land is a land and the owner
is shown as Nandan Shettyianti The”1″‘j:fietitioncr was
working in Dubai and ownetivhsetfersi 2″”‘i1eti_tioner also
is owning several’ staying in
her marital it{sc.,employed. Likewise, the ‘4’”
and 5″?’ in Bonibay and residing sepsratety and
the records do not’fti’isclesei”the’nsrne of Narasi Bai as the”‘te_:___nant. The
. ‘ ercier does ncitrequire interference.
the counsel for the petitioners, Government P-,_lea§ier and the
A. ‘Counsel-‘representirig the respondent.
It is the submission of the petitioners’ counsel, tl1ough’.tl1ere was a
specific direction issued by this Court to conduct spot irnsgiection, no such
inspection was conducted and even as per the earlier sgiot: inspection
W
report, petitioners are cultivating the land and that has not beeneeeneidered
by the Land Tribunal. The petitioners and their mother were
since long back as chalgeni tenants and itiiat
Land Tribunal ha not applied its niiridwend’ «thel-«iorderliV:peseed’*l)y time i
Fer contra, eoiineel reef: “d'”t
submitted that the Dixrisionllitierichlefytiiiité “er? 99f20€J1-decided on
27.3.2001 has held that pupj5’1as.é; a mailer’ of right as
it is non-_ag.”icttlttiriIl;’. the specific case of the
applieent_Vhereel:f is a punja land, question of
considering-the’e7eme_:ter does not arise. Further, no iota of evidence
is prodticedjlexceiJt’Vthe’:orallevidence and the Form 7 filed. More over, she
hag mentioned as ecoolie inzthe Form 7 filed and that also .disa_tbles her to
” . referring to the annexures predttced like RTC,
” .5; it in Co!
I-he V
V the petitiuners are not entitied for grant of occupancy rights.
Having heard the counsel for the respective’ parties, letme consider
whether the impugned order requires interference and whetlierany error as
h’ °ttedb th T1) I.
sue iscommi y e nmtin/e
‘3»
At the outset, it is seen though there was a direction by Court
to hold spot inspection on the ground that no spot Isms
conducted, the Land Tribunal proceeded on the htlteselvl
was a spot inspection conducted as suohlllllno’ further -:spot” inspection is
as per the averments madetn ‘the, ‘such; tiuestion of
conducting a spot inspection onoelegeilnsdoeslvnot Laiése as is l.ightly noted
by the Ttibunslalso’. ” A l ‘A N h
counsel for the respondent, the
petitiozters.? Bat has paid gent to one Shatnaraya Shetty
who is not in question. In that case; necessarily,
dtege is no payl/mentot” rental to the real land owner. Futtltergmore, what is
., Ahveintg izlnoticedjut sense; of the Tribunal is, for the yeat’_1968 at an
:1.-tdispoted
._. pint ,1″ time, ..s .13– he R-C p…..!.-t’;’.., .21.: !.an.. is shown as
6 all-‘ n’II”:1rnLtI’-1.7!–eon, ‘l’.’n.4’l..:.. 01…; ‘I and “‘l”..: “an! 1…… «I-..Iu… ‘uu’.e-.. ml? 61… -l3’…«.+
H”! ‘1. I” I u .I’UuIInII.UI., I-II Laflllll LIIU I II I I\ II II-I-H-9 :Ul. IIIU 1. I
that itnffionn 7 filed, the applicant has mentioned her avocatioti as Coolie
3 ll supports the case of the respondent to the effect that could not
be treated as a tenant in respect of the land in question. More over, the
land is noted as a punja land as is also mentioned in Form 7 :itsej:l1’. If at all
1l’t.._1*'”
she has cultivated the land in question and if as stated by_her, she had
‘ ‘K,’
Admittedly, it is her case that the gutta of Rs.it)/’- was paid to ‘V’ V
Shamaraya Shetty who is not the owner and even’ as a rruattefiof fast * _
finding, throughout as observed by the Tribunal;.:’thereeis7′ at
the land in question as a tenanted land. In such circurristance,”th’e
Tribunal has come to the conclusion the question is iptilnjaiiland
which was never in cultivation of petitioners :« or ,.V_the_applicant,”i their
mother. The Land Tribunal has also’i’seme” the documents
produced by the petitioneijsiiihon the ‘those are subsequent
1:.
I2
3
‘9.
in
S
3
1D
‘3-
“3
‘3
.3
’15’
la”
.”.”‘ i
.
.. as
» an
€1.-
==_+~
O .
5
%
E
or
W
=
G’
s
3;
nor Nandan Shettyit-(ere the-__iansilo;rt’ts of the land in question as ueh,
question off them gt-;’ni..b}_a’._.t.1se applicant was not justified and it does
niot_1amour.t to givin’g..g_i,e’ni_ to the land in question. ‘
thathasi per the earlier spot inspection report it is noted that
portion of the land was under cultivation, the fact remains, when
‘was not given to real landlord and also there were
it Hisloeurnents produced to show that the land in question’
, (kt; we/$4»-‘–¢L4 -/c~-o-~/~ A W”
no material
A.,_ALJlcJ’01»~–l’r7{o
alsoason
In JP’
ewe
uuuuauu – —51-.-
&E..”‘fl..,
«I
M
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1
_-‘\g
¥Mf%””
JILT
J
I
i “iaxdisrniesexii t i to
1.3.1974 the finding of the Land Tribunal on merit, cannot b¢.je§siiy,T
interfered with.
1.3.1974 W”en — “‘””””°”te ate pt-nduced te__ei:o\n’ that tiie~3.la:jd”
an -.-.–.–._ _ ..
question was brought under c”iti”-ten ‘ct: apgilieont ,_a.,g-.13 of
documentary evidence, the finding of as;-{a%.tAoar.::et’
by another finding. Further_, thet.o,t.m.st.;ttnge¢;;os;;g:t the
Tribunal even in spite. of be i’jo1i_nti’fa ‘ft
with as there was gm ietfeiiable and ae was
not noticede.b3r.thie’ that there was-no_ each
spot inspei:tion– L’ such spot inspection was’
and the report”-ayailahlie; .wiriia+_”noi reason once again to such
of the view;-Jitlxe-order
._ ‘viewVof.ifie*’t’aiseuseio:: ::-.e.de a-..,.v-,-I
of the does not requir’ iwterference. -itetition
set!-*
‘judge
‘ ediv t!~.e land in question fie inhpttrtéat to}