i
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
BETVVEEN
1.
DATED THIS THE 29'1"" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI *
W.A No.2741/2099 (LR). 'V I .'_g., J
Smt.Jayamma, _
W / 0.1ate Channegowd 21.
Aged about 65 years. ''
Sri Lokesh, I
S/0.1ate Cha.nnégo'.vd--:_1,3';-,':. ' '
Aged about 40 yEarSV. 1
, .
S / 0 ,1é1tr.':j--v CVh3ann.¢g0yvda.~,
Aged abmj:..3'0 yearTs._
Srri'L'~..VaraIakS'hTI'1Rinma,
1 ' "/0.H0nVfie'gov'cda and
' /' 0,, Chaflnegowda,
about 38 years.
W 0 Qbvindaraju,
Age'd"35 years and
" _D}'0.1ate Charmegowda.
R/0.KriShI1apura Doddi,
I Ramangaram T aluk.
Ramanagaram District.
[K-2
6. Smt.Gangamma,
D/0.late Channegowda,
Aged about 25 years.
7. Smt.Gowramma,
D/0.late Channegowda,
Aged about 25 years.
Appellants 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are _ A
R/ a.H0sah0nr1agana Doddi -Halli," .
Maranahalli Dhakale, Kasab_a'*Hobli, ' --
Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagaram .' A
District, formerly Ba_n{§alore'"D'ist:'ic"t,._ .. lgggfghffamgé
[By Sri G B ManjL1natli2_1_;'Ad.vl;)::'
AND:
Sampang-i"Rajui.:'.. l' 'A
S/o.RangaR'aj;a, " _ ._
Since» cl'ea..cl:ljy
1.
W}! c.lrate"Sarf1p_a'ng"i' Raj L1,
_ Aged. abou 5?} ye-a1's.
-----
_S._(0,late Sampangi Raju.
T. ;A,gedl'ab'Qut 41 years.
1 & 2 are
R / a. Pailwan Govindappas
Hou'sg,_'1~No. 1, Beedhi,
V. ., "xi ivekanandanagar,
' 'Ka_n?akapu1'a Town.
"Ramanagaram District.
3. Smt.Baby,
D/o.1ate Sampangi Raju,
and wife of Manedallali Arasu,
Aged about 46 years,
C/ o.Somashekar,
Chunchaghatta Main Road,
Renukambanagar,
51" Cross, Konanakunte ¥?ost,._. Af;
Banga1orew56O 062.
4. Smt.Venkata1akshnfia£fi1*na,
W/o.1ate P Ramaraju, ' _
Aged about 53:'3{ears;""' * "
R/a.Venkateshwara'Te3;_1tu.Roa.d','~ t _
Near Arun Store, K Rt'vFL1{'am.§"'--
Banga1ore356Q.-'G8 . :,:=
5. Sm_t.).MaL{{u1;_a.'v '} M V
D/
6. Vi"-'Sri
S o.1ate._P' Ra1'r1aér'aj.u',
Aged about 29" gzaars.
/o;1ate P Ramaraj u ,
about 27 years.
VSmt.1\Ia'nda. .
t' 5 to '7 are
R,' a.Vé11kateshwara Tent
Road, 'Near Arum Store,
" at K R Puram,
' ,Ba'nga1o're~560 036.
8. The Land Tribunal,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Kanakapura, formerly
Bangalore District,
New Ramanagaram District.
9. State of Karnataka,
Represented by the
Secretary to Government, a 9
Revenue Department, ''
lVIulti--st0ried Buildings, , ~ _ .
Bangalore -- 560 001, . Reisp0nde=nt's
(By L S Chikkanagoudar &l}'is:sleciates~f0rel;~5{l
Sri M B Vishwanath, and R9)_'
This W.A is filed of the Karnataka
High Court-..Acft,-.'_pra§,rir1g te set aside the order dated
8.4.2009 p_a'ssed'=-- bjifvetllie.,,,-learned Single Judge in
w.p.No,.,20e_i"37.2003"by*ire1.e:ng the same is opposed to
law and quash the e:~cie1~ dated 8.4.2003 passed in Case
l\lo.LRF[A) . 'by the Land Tribunal,
Kanakapu ra ' " Kanakapura, Ramanagaram
District," iorrnerly Baiigalore District, Vide Annexure--H.
lv'l"his .c,Q_nf1ing on for orders this day, KUMAR J
l " . deth ed' fellowing:
JUDGMENT
,._Kl’l”1t’?:’:”V’A appellant has preferred this appeal
is Challenging the order passed by the learned Single
who has upheld the Order of the Land Tribunal
“and rejected the claim of the appellant.
2. The subject matter of this proceedings is the land
bearing Sy.No. 122 / 2 measuring 24
Sy.No.155/ 1-D measuring 5 guntas and
measuring 19 guntas situated at,.H_alii llivanjd
Chikkamudavadi villages, Kana’}~:ap[ur’a
Rural District. It is the?’-‘$15? of” thatm
under a lease agre_ementd…eif1’tered. intol-:.l:3etv\7een the
parties on 1 5. _ _ V Raju and
}\I0.l and 2 in
the writ the was handed over to the
1st didxnot vacate the possession
of thehland after’:.1con1.p1e1;1on of the lease period, legal
notice was issued as per Annexure — R2. Thereafter on
d 159:74h’Aforcihlvllhe was evicted from the land in
q’t1’CS1ti’Ol1:’1.._hIlifiict, the land owner has given evidence on
1129.1.979A«:””admitting the tenancy. Since the entries
made the revenue records for the year 1974-75 and
“hi”s”name has been in the Cultivators column in respect
it the land in question, the Land Tribunal as well as the
k/,a
6
learned Single Judge committed error in rejecting his
claim of occupancy right and committed serious error in
granting occupancy right in favour of SarnpanVgi.4:_lli’aju,
who in turn had mortgaged the
fallen to his share under a partition. The”Laridll”i%ribhnlal” .
as well as the learned Single J
prior to the appointed date.._V:vt’herellis L’
show that the appellar1tspe..vvlgA3’i*e “in. and in
cultivation of the lar1ld:lli_r1 therefore merely
on the admission ofjthe even the evidence of
the sol the occupancy right
cannot the claim of the appellants
was –.rejected. ‘vsikggrieved by the same, the appellants
” . have E’preierred ‘appeal.
I ‘V-l;ea1’n.ed”counsel for the appellants submitted that
the 1:4 ‘i’espondent even though he is not in possession
A. and enjoyment of the land in question, he has not tiled
7:lp’roper application in Form No.7 and he tampered Form
7
No.7 as noticed by the Authority. When once mutation
entries are made in the name of the appellant for the
year 1974-75 onwards and the owner adrniVts<<l_:'it=hat
Channegowda, the husband of the 18'
father of appellants No.2 to tenarxtl'_':as"':oi1V the
appointed date, which evidence.'is1'_'eo'rrob_o'rate§i :b3I."l"the
Ir
evidence of the adjoining ofthee1§1ii.Fl§:..;":l7he"lLancl.it
Tribunal as well as the Iea..rne'd_ Single' Ju.dge:lwere not
justified in rejectingfhe thepappellants and
upheld the c1.ain1_of We do not see
any suhrnission. It is specifically
pleaded that the husband of the 181
appellantlllaridfather of appellants No.2 to 7 was the
fifipthellllllands in question since 1957-58.
to the appointed date, there is no
rI1"utat.1oriV:entries in the RTC and there is no receipt
having' paid rent to the landlord. There is no material
show that neither he has grown the Crops nor he has
it " paid rent to the landlord nor in any way he has enjoyed
8
the property in question. From the fact it is clear that
his name appears after the appointed date. In those
circumstances, the two fact finding authorit’1esi~.V_on
appreciation of the material on record have_.rec’oi*wdfe–d’
categorical finding that he has__fai_led
case of tenancy prior to the ldateioi” appointed:”ii’-date.
Hence, we do not see anyherror cor’m¢n1t;tedv.Vby_:t’1*ie1″;i andw ‘
do not find any justificatiopn—-to’-interfere”wiithsthe order
passed by the fxccordingiy, the
appeal is dismissed.
§§
‘Sé.;’f””
RIDGE
Sd/-
IUDGE