IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15"" DAY OF DECEMBERT.~2fI¢Q§I'__'tf
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.jS'REED1?I_AR
AND _
THE HON'BLE'MR. JUSTICECRAVI MA;;'I1\.}:AVTiTTV
REVIEW PETi::'T'~I«OI\?"N:_():;:i§3§E-/2009C"
W.A. NAQ,V72_48V_/290-3~..v ..
BETWEEN:
1.
SAYYEDTALVIA s/(:3, s'A.'i1*YE_I) IDRIS
s1NcE"D'EcjEAsE:T) BYCLR
ZAHI--.DA__ W/01.NAVE«ED....TMAM
AGE: "37 YEARS,"QCCi'--~S.ERVICE,
G.3, 3A 'BUA.ILDIN"GC, KUDATRKAR NAGRI,
SEANTI NAGAR, PQNDA, GOA.
SA._YY2E,D»AZIZU'I;;;L'A s/0. LATE SAYJAJED
. I 'IDRIS K.I!,AZV1
'Afifztvvé-fZY'EARS, occ: AGRICULTURE,
'.R2'U. :v1I'R.zA1'~TA VILLAGE, KUMTA TALUK,
UT§'D1sTR;TCT.
JAIBUNNISA INAMDAR
" "svTE1s{cE'DEcEAsED BY L.RS,
KEA'1jRU1\:N1ssA INAMDAR
D/0. ZAIBUNNISA INAMDAR,
C' "AGE: 61 YEARS,
V10.
AR/__O. MAIN ROAD, PONDA, GOA.
Ix)
SAYYED MOHIDDIN PASHA
S/O. ZAIBUNNISA INAMDAR
AGE: 63 YEARS,
MUSTAQ INAMADAR
s/0. ZAIBUNNISA INAMDAR
AGE: 59 YEARS,
BIBI AISHAiNAMDAR _ _
D/0. JAIBUDDINISSA INA.MD_AR '-
AGE: 56 YEARS, "
ASMAT1NAMDAR",f~-., ._ ,
D/0. ZAIBUNNISA INA_,IviDR,A.'R:»'
AGE: 53 YEARS, A
ALTAF
D/0. ZAIgB'U°t5I.N"}vS'1A INA A D,'A,_1i._' A
AGE: 61 Y.EA.R,Sa "
PETrvTI0NTER_YYN,Q7.Y3 ARE
R/O. BAN_A"!_ASi-.Vi»I;,_[;AG:E,
TQ: s1R..s1,.D1sT '*
Bliss," I{HU;£'E.?'A' ':'NAMi)AR
wi/*0. ,SVH.AHBU'LvvH...A;SSAN INAMDAR
«AxGE:"'5, 6 _YE_ARS,
% .=R/0, 'NEwv3'A.GALK0T,
._D1_s.T:~ BA GALJKOT.
M*AHARA5N1zA W/O. PEERSAB KHAZI
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
, PETITIONERS.
(,I§Y"sR1A;'ANANT R. HEGDE, K.S.PATIL_, IEEVAN J.
-NEERALGI, ADVOCATES.)
AND
4A.
4A1.
THE LAND TRIBUNAL KUMTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
UK DISTRICT.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRE,TARY,g
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, '
IvI.s.EUILDING, .
VEEDAHANA VEEDI, ' "
BANGALORE-I.
VIJAY KUMARI SHENOY' _
NOW RESIDING AS SPL. LAftNiD
ACQUISITION 0FEIc_E,R,,, j, .-
MUNICIPAL.CORPC)RAT*I:ON;{f*.,_ ~ ~
MANGALQI_RE';»EI _ , =
MANJUNI,AT-ELI; S'RI..R:i.;M"1IAK'AR
SINcEI~DE,(:,EAS;ED 'BY---.LRS'*,~-...
DATTA"MAINEUVNAITE-..T§U'SH1 KUMTARAR
SINCE' DECEASED l3'Y_}';RS,
GEETA JCS'-HI 'W/0:; DDATTA @ DATTATREYA
«.AGEE~,'44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
A-R/_.';ARI§I~ QN1, NELLEKERI, KUMTA,
HV4_A2.
IVIANASI. AND/0. DATTA @ DATTATREYA
I<:UMTAI<;AR
* A A_GEi""21 YEARS, occ: STUDENT,
R/D. ARRI QNI, NELLEKERI, KUMTA,
DIST: U.K.
4A3. ATHITI D/O. DATTA @ DATTATREYA KUMTAKAR
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. APPI ONI, NELLEKER1, KUMTA,
DIST: U.K.
(SR1. A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE, FOR R.4A1 -- R.,4}»A3..)' S '
(SRI. C.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE, FOR RAA2.) " 4
(R-3 TRANSPERRED)
(RI _ SERVED.)
THIS REVIEW PETITION T»S_'IEILEDTTU*;'S-1.11'4 R/W.
047(1) OF THE CPC R1-W.SEC---.----15f'£.O.F CP"C-,.V.I.SE'EKING
REVIEW OF THE ORDER"'2DA.TE:D. '9.[2.[2'QO9 PASSED IN
THE WRIT APPEAL NO."/'248f207'0:3 THE FiLE OF
HON'BLE HIGH C_OURT_._._QF_ vRARNA'rA;RA, CIRCUIT
BENCH,DHARwAD. * ~ *
THIS PE§1"'1"f_I«.()iAI¢"iV'C.O'IS(I«Ii\i~G"-ON' FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, SR1. SREEDHAR'QRAIO, J., PASSED THE
FOLLOWING':
A ORDE
A'I.1'& . "l¢i"1'eVd for Condonation of delay is
IA 'V
x "'--*£:fV.11e".V'Iand bearing Sy.NO.2I of Harita Village,
measuring 8 acres 39 guntas belonged to
' fj~___O'TIe SaVyad idross Sayyad Ali Khan (grandfather of the
,,,, _.
RESPOIV I")4A]'A'3"'VI'.JIj'i*"~--.:§ I.
petitioner). The revenue authorities on the ground of non
cultivation assumed the management of the said land
U/S.65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural4,Lta_n'd_s
Act (for short BT & AL Act) by an
26--~03-1951.
3) The Tahasildar after thel"-salld
leased the land for cu1tivatior:._ri..,3 falvouroofj of " 1
respondent No.4 (R/1») bjyglease""orldelr""d_atedl107-~~O;l»-1951
for a period of 10 years. was extended
for furthier” by the Assistant
Commissiolr1er«.bly–andl:ord’e.rl”‘d:a.–ted 31-03-1961. The lease
was further for years in favour of father of
always o’ifdeI’s..dated”l3m1ll-12-1966.
father of petitioner filed a suit in
..:l_«~’.._»_Q.S».No.203z*;_1§tS7 on the file of Munsiff, Kumta, for
dee’la.rat”i;on that the resumption of the land for
1 ‘l:.l”I-‘tttanaigement U/S.65 of the BT & AL Act is illegal and
E
entitled to possession and that the continuation of “the
lease in favour of father of R.4 is illegal and contra1′-ijkf”–«tlo’.,A4
the provision of the Act.
5) The father of R.4 died
Amendment Act of Karnatal<a":_La.r1d
The father of R.4 made. an of
tenancy rights in form held the
claim of tenancy:.o.i:"::l{_…4 rights.
The petition'elr's"—-.T"'i"fa.the:rjf–p.\jA~»…fil:ed'ljp .V.'0lT.lP.No.4386/1976
challenging"llt"h~e.l:':v:2%r.aޤt"' rights. The writ
petition was matter remanded to the
Tribunal.-for freishl ene1uif.y.l"lln the meantime the suit filed
atargue» fgfppthelllpletitioner in O.S.No.203/1967 was
matter was pending before the Land
Tribunal Virtue of remand, the First Appellate Court
'=.llCtT1'2.fl1'i'E1§dThe decree of the Trial Court in favour of the
.i"'4l'.'j~._plTair1'tlffi The R.4 filed RSA No.63/1988. This Court
the decree of the First Appellate Court and the
as/,
RSA is dismissed. The judgment in RSA is reported in
1995(3) Kar.L.J. £14.
6) The Tribunal in the second round
confirmed the occupancy rights
dated 01.07.2003 despite the decree ino,s.Nei.2ot3/39e7;*
The petitioner filed fiearned
Single Judge has held in
favour of the peti_tioner…–.–i,5:’ 11’u1l:.ityi”‘.iri”i’–‘L_view of the
provisions of Reforms Act.
The order in favour of R.4 is
up held. VDijviside.gfegiench of this Court in
W.A.No.f7-24gA8/2460.3″hasiii’-cohfirmed the orders of the
:i;.eair’n.e S inigleiii’ In d ge.
‘rhect;:eemiener has now filed the review
..i_iéa’~«.p4eti_tion ~.to}_ seek review of the judgment in
£_gj~w;A.isI’e’s.<724s/2003.
%//,.
8) The facts reported in RSA No.63/1988
disclose that the grandfather of the petitioner w-a’s~it–hge*.l’4
owner of the land in question. The land was A’
and uncultivated for a period of 2 yeiar’s’.« The .;Tahasil’dar
exercising power U/S.65 of the, BT
order dated 26-03-1951 for maniéiaE¢grnen.t.l”T_h’e
granted lease for a father
of R.4. Later on the years. The
Assistant lease by 10
years in that time the Land
Reforms and BT & AL Act had
been repealedll.*–._ii –
. lglfhelllabove narrated facts categorically disclose
that”the___R.4iiwas:ln»e”ver a tenant under the petitioner or his
father any. point of time. In fact the lease was granted
Tgahasildar/Assistant Commissioner when the land
_wasii’n tinder the management of Government by virtue of
ifV.cggtlliembrovisions of Sec.65 of BT & AL Act. The father of
the petitioner had challenged the resumption of land
U/S.65 of er & AL Act in O.S.No.203/1967. DuritthgTthya..ry
peridency of the said stiit R.4 filed an application A’
No.7 for grant of occupancy rights.jThe’st_ii’it ‘the
father of the petitioner did not in’v.oiV_e
pertaining to tenancy rights. Theifieyifore be
said that it is hit by Land
Reforms Act. if if if A
This Cou=:’rt that taking the
possessioni”oif” under BT & AL
Act U/S.6fii”i.si period envisaged under
the Act. After ‘thee exfiiryr the said period the owner of
iig:,.,’;3fntiit1A_ed toiioossession. The BT & AL Act has
been Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961.
Therefore v~..’thev”‘iiextension of lease by the Assistant
–.i’Coiifiri1issioner in the year 1966 under the provisions of
Act is illegal.
9
a?/
10
The decision rendered in RSA No.63/1988 arising
out of the O.S.No.203/1967 cannot be held as a h’urIilntpyelyy
and the provisions of Sec.l32 of Karnataka V’
Act will have no application to thellllsubjecpt méiVt’t’er:an.~d
issue involved in the proceedings.
to) The effect of the in lnstepjntellies/itees
declares the title of Ithelllpetitioner
has executed in the decree.vh~a.sj:ta.leen._’th’ee_hlpbs’s’ession in the
year 1995. The of the land
from the lease being taken
only from the: Assistant Commissioner
cannot C_+’«”‘I1ffe’~l’ tlhe.,lstat’usl’-ofla tenant under the Karnataka
steed’ R«elfo?retns’l’..Act latwany rate. When the lease was
grantezi th.el.1~~rnanagement by the Government, the
llhllllprovisions ,.__of~l{arnatal<a Land Reforms Act would not
,in any manner. Therefore the finding by the
Tr;i.blu.nlalillthat the R.4 is a tenant is untenable.
%
ll
11) The above material facts and issue, “the
relevant provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms
BT & AL Act have not been argued and V’
impugned judgment under review. in”th’at.vi’ew_:
petition is allowed, consequently i’t__he._iwrit’V_~~_l’appeailu_:.li-slyl’
allowed. The Tribunal has nol”jt.:,i.’riisdicti’o_r1″tij entertain
form No.7 for grant ofolc-::up_ano_vi” in the instant
case. In that view__ the gr_a:”n’tV :goC’e~11lp’a’nvc-iy rights in:
favour of R.4 isset
Sd/-9
FUDGE
sale
313333-