xn TEE H163 coma? or KARNAmAKA Ax sAnéaLoRE"%"
nAman THIS THE 14"'nAx or JULY€ ééfié V ;'
?RESEN'I'
THE HON'BLE MR.3vswi3fimK.L§HanJgfiA?E""w'
THE HON' BLE _MAL1}~&A'.IfH~'
w.A.No[1i8a7afi 2db#cgLgA)
BETWEER :
1
B R GAHQANRA QQA sic Ramgmga GOWDA
R/O MALLA$3AE¥A_ »'
KASAEA H0853 1' _
KuN1GaL:TALBE?a w, , *
rUMKUR»nIswRIcT§.".'
SINCE nzéb $Y-;RsI
.RAfi§k$fi3MX B G"'" """
'_so§ at nA$E_£ R GAHGANNA GownA
r;-.5
R/OMMALLAGKATTA, KASAEA HOBLI
Ku§zGAL.mALUx, TUMKUR sxswnzcr
RAMAK§iSENEGOWnA 3 G
--x*28T¥EAas,
';;su&,oF LAEE B R GHGANNA Gawna
«=&m;mmmmmmm,wwMmzmmJ
.}.EUxIaAL mALUK, wuumnn nzswaxcr
"NARAXAHA GownA 3 G
* 27 YEARS,
sea or LA$E B R GANGARNA GOEA
R/0 MALLAGHATTA, KASAEA HOBLI
K'iJ'I'3C£®sI. TALUK, TIJMECEFR DISTRXCP
Ci) HONHAMMA.
(By Sri
APPEZ.12.A2~I*I'S)
AND
1
62 YEARS,
WIFE OF LATE B R GANGNNA Gowna
R/O MALLAGHAmwA, KASABA HOEL$ _ T
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DIS?RICT'az 2
.f¢.A?§ELi&mrs %
L s cHIxKANAsoUn&g*s Assa¢xnfiEé}é6§
THE STAKE or Kanmamgxm BY Ifs $éG§E?ARY TO
THE BEPAR$M3yT.oE_RgvERvE=j,_ 5
M.s,Bfiifin:fiasffa3'$fi3anfiA§ VEEDHI
BAN6aLGRE--01f »* ~ '-
SM? 2A§?Am3AHa§ = :
WI$E OF 3A$AvAcHAR"
' * sificzvnmaa Bf ER sum MUNIGANGAMHA
'D/9 Eh$AV§CHAR, R/Am JAIE'TEMPLE STREET
'_'3EH:fim aazfi TEMPLE, KUNIGAL TOWN
$xi 3,§'§afimnAvAcHAa1
HUSBEHB or MUHIGAKGAMA
R/Af_§§IH TEMPLE STREET
"fifiglflb JAIN wauynn
. $D§IGAL TOWH
'(THE LAND TRIBIRQAL
"K'{3NIG@AIa TOWN
KU3.*EIG&L
TUMK.'{3R DIS'.I'RIC'E
RESPGNDENTS
(By SM? : ASEA. M.' GERIMATH, HCGP FOR R1 )
Petition came to be allowed and the was "
set aside and remanded "tho
21.2.33. Again after
considering the evidence
relying upon the passed
o.s.1~:o.39o/53 whiozi '' in
re. .A. No . 1 6 /1979 . _ in
R. s . A. no . 1 0:7) ' application filed
by the " occupancy rights
on 29.331934; _.'w.i':ic:h again the tenant
filed a wrii:..%po1-.:1:ioo'.8614/1993 and Civil Fetition
Sf»).
came to be converted into Writ fietition in
W.P.1~3o.268Ci1/2000. The Writ Petition
dismissad on merits by holding that the $p§é:1aa£_
herein was not a tenant _of_ tfié" land tand'»'
concurring with the orders; of»'tha"giri$tn§l;
dismissed the Writ Petition on-V.V:13?"fl§15e;ne.VV'téeesfi"
Challenging the legality anfi eorrootnoso of the
order, the present" fiyea1;ti$: filed by the
unsuccessfulrapé11ant}=
3. The learné¢"ooun§o1 for the apellant has
raisedg the fo1iofiing"jpoints in support of his
xxarguméntéf *
Vtn;§fiafi¢ri5una1 as wall as the learned Single
VtJudeVhavé~ebmmittad an error in not considering
""5ftné gase of the appellant solely relying upon the
';udgmnt and decree passed in O.S.No.390/68.
flkelying upon a Jhdgment of this Court in
7«f ":35aAs:RATaz mm & OTHERS V.LAND TRIBUNAL, unwx
ARD OEHERS reported in 1979(1) KLJ 30? contends
$1';
that 3 even if a decree passed
J
appellant in a Civil Court considexi::=.§:'.the:
and object of the Karnatake
still the 'tribunal had coheider
appellant was a tenant: asvhlen' §.V.3."1'9fV?:4' it was
imperative on the of ~ to grant a
relief to the 'v'alte::-natively
contends since the ':5-:=:sré=,ni1e4_"entfiee still continue
in the efipeliant.V"exren after: 3..3.19v4,
the Tr:li3un--el V "considered the revenue
entries , "';,;?aeu_§§;;»t1cn attached thereto .
_..v1'l1ere%5§:,§r;e; on H' these.» two grounds he requests this
A"Cou1;;~'t» aside the order passed by the.
leexfied and so also the order passed
by eribunal, Ifitunigal.
VA Eiaving heard the counsel fax: the appellant
Government Advocate fie: the responeents,
are of the opinion that the learned Single
Judge hes. not coztmitteci any error, in Order to
5%'
interfere with his order for the _ foii'e$r.ing
336330113 2
It is no doubt true that in E.
o-mmns Vs. mm) TRIBUNAL, um;:9:1:
Court while considering ,'i:h4_e pr;v£rision}3AV.ic>f
section (2) of Section Act
No.31/'19'74 has ---held' lies been
passed by the Civi1,_ and after
1 .3.1974 , thef "&s£--wé.ub~section (2)
caf SectiVi3n~¢3 its ixrmrtancze and it
is furtheghelazl " matter can be reopened
,L~yf fcfie 1 ';'rii:>ii'nas_-1.' and ear: be considazted.
'i:3c:.aj;se:nde,;-:m;z';*'V Subsequently, the learned Single
V "caf had an occasion to consider
the c.$..~=.;¢".4;>.f" BHAGIRATHI mm a o-rm:-"es vs. LAND
£1069: in the case of VE1~IKA'1'AIAE AND
vs. Izmcmma AND o'rrmRs reported in ma
"'(:;égtérLaa=A1<A) seams 3.980 PAGE 693 wherein this
Court has held that" any decree passed prior to
/'
1.
3.1974 weuld be binding on the parties.
(2),
5. From the perusal of the5eQt§e Sfid§$@fltSt 3k
we are of the opinion that eten thofigt theta is
ne prohibition for the Land tribune; ta dcnsiaer-t
the tenancy rights as on ;¢3§;9?§ itteepeetive of
the decree passed thy fitheflifittil Cburt in
Venkataiah’s eaee, ttigitttgttgagjhela that the
decree paaseé pfitet tel; gfigete it binding on the
Parties» “”” “wneteferef fit iemelear that when the
O éffa 9:,
appellant has sfi£fieté@”;’aecree s that he
is not a tenent of the land in question prior to
tN1,3.1§?44th;¢n”5u§gment has been affirmed by this
!
tceutt tn Rgsfe, No.10?/74 dt.18.1.1974, the same
t7–_ is binding en the appellant. we are also of the
ta_4epinien.ttet whenever 3 Judgment is rendered by a
~«eetgpt¢nt Civil Court prior to 1.3.1974, is
‘V,e$inding on the parties. If there ie a tenancy
‘ediepute a on 1.3.1974 and if such land is Vested
in the Gavexnment, then the question cf
considering the actual dispute between the
we
parties would arise. In the instant cage–
the Land Reforms Act: came into the K
eoxzpetant Civil Court hats u
cantentian of the appellant thtatthe 3;_s”I._.a”
at the land in question. is. tenant
as on 1.3.1974, the ‘q;ia3.5tio1{1Vv”<;f_,j:e.st:i.ng the land
in the Government ?§.ri'ré' all. when
the land has Govezncnment,
the questiorr alleged tenancy
of the €§pp:all3iu1t:':–. 'Land '1Z'r:i.1::auna.1 does nczt
arise at all," _ this point, we are of
the opiéggién thrt-. 3.V§___a. Judgment; has been passed by
Court prior to 1.3.1974 the
vsaxtlrejxhzifi' on the yartieé. If a coxmterzt
ci.v:i..1 .44"('.f:ai$;;'t'has hald that a person is net a
the question of vesting the land in
the Government under the :[.and Reforms
V ' w H does not arise at all . In such
circungstanzzas, the Tribunal aannat entertain the
application filed. in form I:¥o.?. Similarly, if a
5*'
H
decree has been passed by a conpetent
declaring a person as a tenant:
goes without saying such ii, V
Gcvernment anti in sugh ‘c::£.’I:cums§4*.é§:».n(5.és,’:’; 1′.1ie.:
Tribunal would get; juriséiuétigan form
No.7 filed. by the
6. Tharefqxe, we._ are: in the
instant casgéé Civil Courté
prior he_:3.:.§1vW’vi:hat the appellant as
not a of considering his
applic-3.t:i.o:{” Tiihunal again daes not arise
“at; a-3:1 2 “V’3§.cco£*£ii’ii§_.3’1y, graunci No. 1 is answered
‘éLgé,:i._Tx1u$’t.: aggsellant .
as the 2″” point is concerned, when
léné has not faaen vested, zmre ravenue
V’ jéf1t~.:_3′.é.-5 in the records wi3.3. not enure to the
“- 3.:e_§r£efit of the amellant: sinaa he has already
field to be not a tenant. ‘fiherefere, tha
presumption attached to the revenue entries will
ex?”
not come tea the aid of the appellant
tenancy right unless and unti3:'”a~-c:as–¥_e
by the appellant that the .
to the appellant on lease! ‘”afteJ:”‘
the dismissal of his suit 駧”hefotev1§3.1974.
Therefore, point No.2’ ‘M “against the
appellant .
8 . At 1thii,=_.”}f_Vstéag-§}’~’:.’t”tiie’ counsel for
the appertilargt’ _* submitted that azfiter
the dismigsgl of Rfifi fi§]1é7/19?4 dt.1e.1.1974 the
owner: Q3. xthté .’i*1a..?s filed a suit for bare
Qinjunétioiit ‘ A:»;fe.=,st:r:a:”:’i’.’ni ng the appellant from
” his lawful possession and
t»’AA”””enjoyAm:a_ntV_.c;£;f’4:i?:e: property in o.s.z~:o.2o5/’23 on the
“tCfiianqf”Mfihsiff at Tumknr and the said suit is
Vtpefiding} Even if the suit had been filed by the
in such a suit the right of the owner
naéxmot be taken away by instituting such a. suit
against the appellant in View of thejid@§fiééf¥T~
passed in O.S.No.390/68.
9. in the msult, the ”