High Court Karnataka High Court

Manegara Durgappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Manegara Durgappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2009
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
V  ;  V AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF   .

DATED THE gm IDVAEKCDF A1513}; 2(§£:9k"* %[%  k
      %
THE HONBLE MR. ..Ia(iS'I'i{;E:V"I§. SWAMY

wmrmfrzwzcyn   (LR)

BETWEEN

 % DA'!.é£N_€3I§§RE DISTRICT.

, _(fig-1553RfV"I§i,_§§ifiiANI{ARANARAYANA

MANEGARA DURGAPPA ' 

SON OF LATE=NI'N GAF'PA

AGED ABOUT' 5? mares,
RESEDING AT_UDDAGAT'1'I VILLAGE
£IARé£P.aNAHAL:,:« TALUK

 PETITIONER
BHAT : ADVOCATE)

x AATHE STATE 01? KARNATAKA

=   v}3Y'SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
"REVENUE DEPARFMENT
__,M.S.BU1LEING, BANGALORE660 001

THE LANE TRIBUNAL
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK
PLARAPANAHALLI,

BY ITS SECR'E'I'ARY,

"\



DAVANGERE DISTRICT.

3 SR! KRISHNAKUMAR  A  %
SON OF LATE RAJMAL SEETHARAM SHETW-'..'

MAJOR, RESIDING AT B1LLA}mfr1T'y'n;1,A(}::', "   '  

SHIRAHATTI TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.  

4 SR1 BYRULAL  %   
SON OF LATE RAJMAL SE  ,HARA_MA SHETY
MAJOR, RESIBING AT BI;L1..AH)¥I_TI"VILLAGE
SHIRAHATTI TALUK,' A       " ~
DAVANGEREADISTRIC'.F_.*--..     "

5L    

S /0.SEETI%¥ARk§;?v£A"'S,HE'I'Y;'R"* "

AGED ABOUT .58.YEAR.S,. ;

BY HIS GPA HQLDERKRISHNAKUMAR

SON QETSEETHARAMA SHETY,

RESIDING AT.BI_LLAI4£~AT'FI VILLAGE,
sI+I;I1<zAHA'm DAVANGERE: DISTRICF.

3.6 j 'SVRIANWARVBASHA
 }_ "SON  ABDUL REHAMANSAB
" ._MAJOR';_~»RESiDING AT ICROSS
KAMARIPBH', HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRIC'I'
  . «  RESPONDENTS

 u {By 3:321 SATISH R GIRIJI FOR R6,
.   §SRI SATYANARAYAN SINGH, HCGP FOR F: 1,2 )

T V  *r1%i1siivRrr PETFFION FILED PIQAYING TO QUASH THE

(}Ri )ER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HARAPPANAHALLI,

 X 1o~5»:2oo3 vim A:m~:.F.

"V



M' _
THIS NP Lemma, 0:»: 139.2, Hafiazaue, fB€r=o:zL;'4V:T;1l+§Z._V_caur:T
'Fanny' dogma? mace Tm; Fou.o;,,:p;,e.¢e.,g ' ' 'T A'

V/'-
ORDER

The order dated 10/05/2o03e% mel%4%”«Lem.
Tribune; Harapanahal1;i in ._No. SR es per
AI11’l€X1_1I’6-F has men chaiE§:nged””by?Ve.:tfie”grgetitidiiérikx this Writ
Petition and sought for

2. It petitioner counsel
that he 1;£’T’i5§V’Vyv180 19/ 1979 which was
disposed 25/:2j :9fs5e.«Q’in the said Writ Petition the

pctitionatfi hacf”‘:1:he order passed by the Land

iii”‘.N(3..279f?5W€fated 05/01/1979. when the Writ

Petéetiee the respondent Landlord had filed his

V L”AA”””statezi:e:;V1t 9f~::$bj”¢cfions as per Armexure — A and at para No.2

mimitiedéi’ that petitioner is the tenant Since the said

of objection was not put up when the case was

for srder, matter was disposed of without the statement

hf Vobjection. Thermfcer the petitioner filed memo for being

1

4

spoken to accordingly matter was taken

the earlier order dated 26/ 2/ 1985 and me

Land Tribunal was directed to A’ it

petitioner Within 2 months “the tixate’ of of
order. Though there were poei’tieee:’tt§teetiotiS”‘iss’i;1ed to the
Land Tribunal to confer tin favour of the
petitioner, the seignle is Land Tribunal.
The Land Teetutaltiiteeiaes the whole matter and
negatives t.’-1e eetifioner. While rejecting
the case at Tribunal in its order at

page No.562 _ No.6 of the impugxedi order has

statement of the landlord as ” Theugh it was

reeort_teti_ statement of Iafldiord, the applicant

it ivianegem Btixfléappa was not given the land but he was

ieéijifiivetigg the iarid as a tenant” the said fact was being

tiy the landlord’s brother. But the Tribunal rejected

‘ease of the petitioner on the gonad that for the year

the petititmer has not produced any revenue entries

to prove that he was a tenant on that relevant date. The said

I

§

reasons assigned by the Tribunal was V’

reason that this Court in the earliexf T~

given positive direction to the>,’I’_z’ii)114IA1–a f*to confeif

right in favour of the petitioner. such case it
was open it was to
reconsider the whole claim. The
landlord himself Wnich was considered
by the Land was a tenant in

respect of _ —

3. _.T1x1e fer the petitioner placed
:.13e1ianee’:a-on which been produced at B series wherein

foe” has been referred as F431 that means

has to be referred as the relevant year. It

ii-enoj: [forfheommg from the records as to whether the

has placed the said material before the Land

But the fact remains that the tenant’s name has

entered in the revenue record as on that date. The

Jrevenne records are the important material evidence but also

“\

6

the statement of the claimant and also T’

adduced. If it is admitted by the is far 7.

the Land Tribunal to pass an order i:i’–.!E’ai:’our of

Hence the order passed by iiable to be
set aside. In the Ies11It’ai1<:i I pass

the following

Writ,:Petitioia;is__alIowe£i-'.,____"Phe impugned order passed by
the Land It is further directed to the

Land Tribunal the occupancy right in favour of the

:1" ted by this court in earlier Writ petition

Within 6 months from the date of

Vvconstitiitjon: of the Land Tribunal.

sais
Eadaé