IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAEDRE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF' NOVEMBER}: A. V PRESENT V V THE HON'BLE MR.JU.$-TICE. N AND . ._ .. THE HONBLE MR.JUsj1cE ARALI WA No. 2234..?5E.20.1Vo(#L'_.3jvV... BETWEEN: MR. MOHAMMED, " - * AGED 58 YEAR':3,_1'-- g SON OFIDINABB_jA,--.'_ ~ 4 _ . RESIDINGZAT'KAw'NENIi';MAN2:1L;~..V NORTH SULiIfI4L'kN..VRC.fi_xVD,VV"-- ~ vPJLLAG"E';:.ND4.P0s'r, UDUPIV D1sTR1CT;.._V'g -- -- APPELLANT (By SR1 " 1SMif TDIVEVAAKI, ' . 'AGE.D'~a4VYEARs, V -.w/ 0. ;~s.r;1EE1\1A POOJARY. H RESIDINGAT GUDDE HOUSE, 'HEJ_E3IVLAI')Y VILLAGE AND POST; VUDUPI DISTRICT. V FEHE LAND TRIBUNAL, P' UDUP1 REPRESENTED BY E 132 ITS CHAIRMAN. 3 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, p M.S BUILDING, 1_ .. , _ 3, - _ BANGALORE. I RESPONDENTS :
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED t?%NDER”S,EcTToN:”4.,OE
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYINGH To; SET v
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED-.._IN “1HE’ ‘I5ETIT1oN’
12362/2008 DATED 31/03/2019′;
THIS WRIT APP fAI_. ccjiixu/IV1IV\IG§.I.=foR ORDERS THIS
DAY, N KUMAR J., DELI’fEREDfTIHE”FOLLOWING:
The appeal the order
passed who has Set aside the
order paSs_ed Udupi and remanded the
matter btaelar to the for fresh consideration and
in aeeo1*’dance lawr
‘ :Subject matter of the appeal is the lands
bearirig 144/3B measuring 1 acre 50 gutas and
‘SVSy.NG.?,.?:1I::/IB measuring 16 cents of Hejamadi village,
“,fIIdLIp.i &DiStr1’ct. The appellant claims that he is a chalageni
teIjIaIIt in the Said land under one Ganga Hengsu, d/0
Thunde Hengsu who is the wife of Krishnappa Hejamadi.
3
He filed the application in fonn No.7 on 30-6-1979 as per
Annexure-D under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 196} [for short the ‘Act’) seeking confe.rrn_ent of
occupancy rights. In the form No.7, he
Hengsu as owner of the property. _The inotiflce »
to her, recorded statement of both
proceeded to pass the order”–.granti1rrj:
favour of the appellant. It is ‘frorn the Land
Tribunal, a1thoughA’*«.._..the {appellant} has not
produced any, recordsdto. ‘substantiate the
tenancy, the respondent i.e.,
before the Tribunal, the
Tribunalunanirnoltislrr occupancy rights in respect
of sardxtwoé tavour of the appellant.
V lilrstwdrespondent herein Devaki filed the
challenging the said order of the Land
her case that the said property belongs to her
underfnp-artition decree and the said property has fallen to
A.her”A_«share excluswely . The order of the Land Tribunal is
‘passed without notice to her and on coming to know of the
4
same, she was constrained to file the said writ petition for
setting aside the said order as the same is
interest.
4. The writ petition was opposed ,jro4und,_,0t”‘a.
delay and latches. However, the learn_ed’lVSirigle inivthe
facts of the case, set aside lthe order of ..Tf’ibunal’
and remanded the inatter for fresh
inquiry after giving ‘4″‘*–V,;r§,’ég’i7,ieved by the same,
the appellant is.beforeAthi.s:§3ourt.__ it it
5. é counsel for the
appellant: of the Land Tribunal,
no nihateiiall-.b_efore the Land Tribunal to Show
that th’e__land ‘in.ouestioniiéreally belonged to Ganga I-Iengsu.
Similarly, Apdoclurnents were produced before the Land
toshowvthat the appellant was cultivating the said
x§n~.,:’i«~3–1974 as tenant. Unless the lands in
cA1u,estio11:ajI*’el tenanted lands, lands do not Vest with the
Governrfient. Consequently, the Tribunal would not get any
j.urisdietion to entertain and confer occupancy rights under
__f3ection 48 of the Act. Because Ganga I-Iengsu admitted
5
tenancy of the appellant, the Tribunal, without application
of mind, without Verifying whether the lands in question are
tenanted lands and without verifying whether the repsppondent
has interest in the lands, has proceeded to said
order.
The material on record disclosesltgha-tp .._(.’i1,:iI
Court at Bombay, in a suitefiled hy._one ;
O.S.No.6882/ 1964 for partitilon.,._and separatevlpossession, in
which subject matter:of_ theAseV_proceeidings wasuthe subject
matter of the suit, decree In terms of the
partition dec1’ee’«y:_r:iutat.ion entr’ies”h.av=3_.b:een made as is clear
fromproduced by the appellant herself
wherein is entered in the Cultivators
colunin, In No.9, it is clearly mentioned the source of
.titl’e asllpavrtition decree. It is in those circumstances, when
pr-irnafaeie, first respondent has shown to be the owner of
the prcp*erty”Aunder the decree passed by the Civil Court and
her continues to be entered till 2007 in the mutation
mgister, without notice to her if her property is granted by
___the Land Tribunal to the appellant, it cannot be sustained.