1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA!.ORE
DATED THIS THE 23" DAY or NOVEMBER"
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, (_2!rr'..1'lA4:'_:§?.JVU--.$::TIA(3n'E_:'4
AND] T T _ '
THE HON'BLE MR.JusTIcE..§);{;.sABH.AET'IT"
WRIT APPEAL No1."2138/2or:9V_r'L§§=)
A/w MISC.W. N'o.,895\o/2oe9v,_
BETWEEN:
SRI M RAVINDRAVHEQDE 1 =..-='
s/0 BABA'-@ VENKATA HE«GD_E -
AGED :w0;*q.T- 84:, YE.A'RSf' .
R/0 PERD1O_C}_R'V4ILL'A.GE.," .
PER:-')oo'RP'osT, UDUP--I..TALUi(
unumt D--1s_:TRI-.cTV ~ APPELLANT.
(By 5,}; : 'J'A'a_rA§§ARA..$'ra,E_TTY, ADV., )
AND: 'A " '
1 V _ STATE KARNATAKA
BY. ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,
15.5 m;ILDIN'G';"
BA.N£~1ALORE 1
A TEATTJAOEE..LA51'n"'TRIBuNAL
. UDUPLUDUPI DISTRICT
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
- 3 Sai' ANANTHAPADMANABHA TEMPLE,
A PERDOOR, PERDOOR VILLAGE AND POST,
MSUDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER... RESPONDENTS
“(HY SRI BASAVARAJ KARREDDY, PRL. GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3)
2
***>f=*>l=*
THIS WRIT APPEAL Is FILED U/S 4,v.,_joE*…THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING IQ s-:ET–d.As’IDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT pETITIoN:”_2’7It-§:s.[‘2.qb5V
DATED 21/11/2008.
Misc. w. No.8960/2009 Is EILELS ulijbfiu “s’E(‘:TI”oN I I
5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT PR1AYING”.TO
_ , V .C,0ND5’N_E “THE
DELAY or 3 DAYS IN FILING THEAP_r>EAL.’~. ‘ ” ,
THIS WRIT v’A’P-PEAL”v- I “wITr–I’
MISC.W.8960/2009 COMINf,5″”~.0N ‘ro’R’r,.’pRE,LIMINARv
HEARING THIS DAY, SABf_iAH_1’I’m 3., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:- = ” ”
IuDGfiEgg}I;
_.:14’4«’;I?_:Vfiiléllllfaetitioner in w.r>.
No.2714s,(V;i5G:$v by the order of the
learned 21.11.2008, wherein the
learned court has declined to
interfere \AIith_”‘tl1ex’order passed by the Karnataka
. Tribunal (for short ‘KA’l”) Bangalore, in
-~Aprp§aIjh!,§.I;’5.5s/2003 dated 30.11.2005, confirming
ord’er:”‘dated 26.06.2002 passed by the Land
Udupi District and has dismissed the writ
_ ‘petition.
\\ _\”>
F.
3
2. The appellant herein filed application
under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Lanc!V~.R_efo.rms
Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
No.7!-\ seeking for grant of laJngd»_mea’suriii_g ‘v”1’O’_’CevnVts»_
comprised in Sy. No.155/=19;’_”s.i:l:uate’~ilatiwhfifielrdur
Village, Udupi Taluk, on’:.th.e ground been
cultivating the said Iand___4_i:as:_’av._v_vten.ant:V._anVd that he
could not have conferment
of occupancv».right;;” allowed the
applicatio_n§~..:Van:::;ffi:: theijé’!anVVdma3easuring 7 Cents
village, Udupi
Taluig. __ -‘by the said order of the
Land dated 25.05.2002, the
re»s;pondent”‘A.hVetore the Land Tribunal preferred
l$lo..p1668/2003 on the file of the KAT,
The KAT, by order dated 30″‘ November
A held that the property measuring 7 Cents
including the house was leased in favour of the
petitioner for non-agricultural purpose and it was a
xv
5
the impugned order, held that the dominantobject
with which lease was granted in favour,i_:”of*-._the
petitioner was for non-agricultural pur,r:éVose;’–‘fi-«rib
land measuring 7 Cents, theremis a resi’d’e’ntiVal vh.ouse’V
and a clinic, in which the petiti0n:er’ih»i.s”carr}{i”ng’i’T1.Qn
the medical profession aiind there are c,oc«§;nut =’trees,f’
mango tree and jack fru_i_it”:tree_s. ..TheV._’An1_a§terial on
record would clearlyishdw{_thatVfthe._said 7 Cents of
land was leased purpose and
ground rent per annum. The
show that lease was
for and therefore, the order
passed 30.11.2005 setting aside
the;j”‘or,der by the Land Tribunal dated
dismissing the application filed by
thepevt:i’t~§,on.§3’i*”.under Section 77–A of the Act in Form
No;—-7~A:.is”‘§ustified and the same does not call for
i interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this
“”i_V2Vo’u’rt and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
“Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single
Judge dismissing the writ petition dated 21.11.2008,
~ «:1
\…~~
6
this appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. There is a
delay of 3 days in filing the writ appeal. Misc. W.
No.8960/2009 is filed for condonation of the said
delay.
5. We have heard .:ti1e_|e’arn’ed’4 véoitlnsvelii
appearing for the appe||ant:”i<.anidi
Government Advocate appearing" for.Vre.sp'o:n'de'nts 1"'
to 3.
6. Learned1’AWooti:ns:e’I:f-appearing for the
appellant- the writ petitioner —
appellantherein””‘was.”eultivating the land measuring
7 as ‘a~.tenan:t and what was leased was land
agriigsuitural purpose and dominant purpose for
was granted was for agricultural
put-pos:e’vand not non~agricultural purpose. The
ord4er””of the Land Tribunal has been passed in
“‘at:cordance with law and the KAT was not justified in
it “reversing the order passed by the Land Tribunal and
dismissing the application filed by the appellant.
7
Therefore, the order passed by the learned single
Judge is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned Principal Government”–«!lVcl.S(t§a:_ai:e
appearing for respondents 1 to 3 sub.mi_ttedrA–i.t:hat
dominant object of lease is for j; ‘ngonfa-9}’riculturiil
purpose and what isV.a’!eased._v”E*s
premises in which the p’etiitioner;~diNi15o is also a
medical practitionefis l.iAav.i,n”g.__a_Aclinic and abutting
the house, there are éocoliut trees, mango
trees and jaci{;.f.rui.t:–.trees aim: ‘ilvh-esrefore, the lease is
not fo’r'”Vagr’iculitiurali”pgurposeavnd appellant can never
be savvid to be a”tgg.gj’ant”-9f…agricultural land and argued
in support of .th-eAo_rd’e’:r passed by the learned single
«. ‘I A. ….. .. W
have given careful consideration to
the co’pte’ntEons of the learned counsel appearing for
V. the parties and scrutinized the material on record.
9. The material on record would clearly show
that the appellant filed an application before the
10
order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 26.06.2002
granting 7 Cents of land in Sy. No.1SS-19~fi’niffa:iiour
of the appellant -~ writ petitioner holdin-yjg:’–thaVt’:.the.’_”‘i1e’»
has proved that he is in possession ‘ j
the said land as tenant is clearly1’eir*rVonie.oiJs.,
by order dated 30.11.20295;-…hasi’righVtlVyi~-set;Vasidje the’ 2
order passed by the Landy__7lTrAi’bu’nal dat’ed..2.(i.06.2002
and the learned isialgieiittJ;;§ig4é–i’a;;;:i;;fgaaponfirmed the
order Passedybuy there is no
error or so as to call for
jurisdiction of this
Court; ‘reason to take a different
view ‘the order passed by the
learned.sing’iey_V_J’1idge confirming the order passed by
..é””t.h&e””in1pugned in the writ petition dated
.i’s.’iustified and does not suffer any error
or ‘i.4l_legai§t’y~’,iias to call for interference in this intra-
2″”‘~.__Viflourtiiappeal. Accordingly, we hold that there is no
in this appeal and pass the following Order:«~
5”:
K,»
11
The Writ Appeal is dismissed. Since the writ’.—._
appeal is dismissed on merit, it is unnecessary
consider the application – Misc. W. No.896O/;2..:DG$!:VV:”” ”
for condonation of delay of 3 .cla\,:s”i–.né
appeal.
5d/Q4
Web ll-l.<_)s"t": vejs'/M5 1:" i
suma