High Court Karnataka High Court

Kumar S/O Shivagouda vs The Land Tribunal on 2 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Kumar S/O Shivagouda vs The Land Tribunal on 2 April, 2008
Author: Manjula Chellur Swamy


.1.

IN mm HIGH couivr or xnmmnxn AT

– mm; 11-as 1314;. 2″‘ DA! 92′ A9a1′;;”,’=–«2_cQa’

rm: Howam: MR. “J’!iSTICE

wan: “‘RPPEAL’.”‘N()fl.;2jéfl./2007V(‘KI5IiA)
2

1 .-<:.'.-'.A:=._, s/o %s:~:1%.m.sa!m-A "
63, mans, ;occ GRICIJI;-=1fURiEi'
Rip sazvw
EKUHHAPUR ~.1uW V V
aqmintiasiiffffl 'a

2 pr;n:<As:a1VsaIwaaoUnA PATIL

L : 'so I.v:.i»~..9.s,_ 03¢'—AGRICULTURE

-R/o Kk’mHEGULUND %

Tésmvcm, +1<o1,1mun

lv1l\HARA3HTRA"'

,_;gy%%%sx1 'VICE?-LYA R mummrenn. 9

WE. LAND TRIBUNAL
' ATHANI, BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BELGAUM

2 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
B! 115 QEGREIARX $0 REVENUE

DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA.

D1Hdl(I".'l.|'I'.f\D'l'-," 'I
uruvuwi-uvnu 4.

f

.2.

1L0

CHALIDRABAI
W/0 BASAGOUDR VPATIL.

MAJOR QEC AGREE:

R/O SHIRAGUPPI . A’1’HP.NI

new .¢_-an an
Dl’a.l..IurLUl’I

4 SU’Nil””1″‘RiL
w/o xnmounn M-:11. _ ‘
55 mans.’ occ aousmuoz.nwoaxT :%%V ‘ ‘
R/0 ANICALL cHI!§K1@.DI.. % A
BELGAUM .V

5 ANNAPURNA’ ~~._ ” ‘V
we AA
so YEARS, cc: HOUSEHQI2fi.$¥QR{<
are .2-.!.=:1.%t.r.=–.'.:»:"»~…v» .s:aI.':¢L %
K01-smurszra .2. j' ~

6 RUSHQA Lmsounn" 3
%%%% V50'-xsznas'
OCC: 55333591'? WORK
RIO "'.Ei1L\VADEa.. "%sH1voL%
xonumqn, nmnansnwan

7 KANGHAN
.=:-em.-z

47 YRS} "" "R/0 K1-WATHE l3KAND,.. TASGAON

-i-n’n u’,ui I nlniinhn nugnnp
Sfiifiiiii iiiRT£HF\Ti’i. F\(?J\ i”C)R R-1 FINE 2}
~ -WRIT APPEAL. FILED U/’S 6- OF’ THE
,.HI€’:H COURT ACT. PRAYING TO .SE’.l’ ASIDE THE ORDER
PA38ED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.4146O9/94 DATED.
‘ 26./10/2006.

_ 3
L §

.3.

THIS wan APPEAL comma on top. pamnmxunnv
HEARINQ rugs pnz, MANJULA cuannua. J. pmnxvzamn
T E FOLLOWING: – *n*.nn>

‘cue learned as-:.!_e.:~._sa.1’~~.V’;4?o,-r tag-

‘via haivé héarii
parties and have gone thro:uqh»_thja””s:f§fif*_

the learned Single.Judga,

2: ,1’n¢.a ggctg. and_nig;nf.u.-ngstanen:§V.:’Aqfi the case
are that lands and 66/2 of
rd. =.Vi11af.<jav..]n£V_ tel.-_-.!:;n – 1-.r_;-e

regiatgxén '" 'rihua' tnird raspan<§=-.:~.t.-
Chandrnb.§i.:"V;jnnni '_ iriicyishvietix-Léin-law». nffzar . 'fihfi
deanzh the third reapondent. –
becnmg "tna of the proporsty. It is
net L1n%4"'d.t.§:put'e A't;hnix Chandrabai in none other than
"i§:.:'i*na:_'.-.n,:dangh£ni.€."'""o'1' the Shivagouda .Pat1.1, the so
A The children of Shivngauda. Patil

[airs _1';'§tixran..i':I.ng the appeal.

1 3.. The learnod single Judge obaor.ved:_ than
" finer: are no lease document or -RTC records

subsequent to 1-3-1974 ta _ show that S-hivaqaudam

c,
/

'Gnu ma:"ai:n*–:rs isf tue parental huu-'.11! to assis-

–4–

Patil was cultivating the landa in question. with

this Vobsorvation, the learnad

proceeded to see how the contant’i§>naVA[.V i:fi1.%§d ‘k;y

each of the parties wouli.-d””‘re«.fle7gt _ ru>i1’V:vth§v–‘.£aétsV ‘<a:5'%

the case. According hef J

mother-in-law being» ea;1ci.VVTs»J.:n-'::A*.n§§""*'t:l*:6re wére

I
1

m La ma,mbg1_:_g Ln aftez the

fa-I

ands, on ..er= ~.-:eq::ea:,t,. 4.3.-.-V1′;-..t..er S..i’.’-.-.g-:-.ude-.

atii ‘vi’5 1:-;r:ki~n<j" afiar t.hé' lands rm their

W3

behaizffi; tg :h é1':VV,:""'liaving regard to the
conf.iV.c!atir:VeTau_:v»sl2'ir3_ father, she was: signing

téhatéfiéfi.-vVr§;:.§rd:§'flaked by him.

I..".-

Aug.’

_V ziéughifiars in case of used, especially in the

any male members in the matrimonial

housé} Apparently. no lease agreement is

fa:-afthooming to support the factum of tenancy.

us-

on 1-3-1974 or prior to that dat§’ 1n the
cult1vator’a column in the RTC would figg gauge to
tha benefit of the Shivaqouda PaE¥l. @§ fi§§ n9
good ground to inter£er9″withtt@eJfi§difi§é 6£uth§*.
learned Single Judge. 2 h’ I 2 AA’. uEL y A

Accordingly, tfiaiaygeél ;sxdigmi§§ad§
_ A, ._fl-_A § ‘

____ K ” Q
= ” ” V”~’ judge