{"id":172005,"date":"2008-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008"},"modified":"2017-10-07T12:27:45","modified_gmt":"2017-10-07T06:57:45","slug":"ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ganapathy S\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ganapathy S\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALURE\n\nDated this the 23\"' day of May, 2003  2' f   , \n\nBefore\n\n71:3 HUMBLE MR Jvszmv: \u00a7;UL\u00a3zVA;\u00a7i\u00a7 ii4,4i1;\u00a7.IJ  V\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Ganapathy S10 Hanumanth  .\n\nBy Gangu Wfo Ganapathy   --. \" .\nVenkappa Sio ummaggm  512  A. ,   _\nGanga\ufb01largfo   1' '  ~ \n\n \n \nNeefalgm\ufb01i Sic  a.9y.~.;\n\n.\u00b0'.V':'*$*'!'-'\n\n7. Bhageemm y.-.s ;\n\nA1} are r\/a Dervarhakkazl, Kumtdfaluk\nU K District; 'L-3   affair} Smt\nHonngirn\ufb01nza Wlo Hanumanth Naik &;\n '~    of and  7 is the\n b{\"iste\"Laxmm Sic Venkappa Naik Petitianem\n\n(By gr; -Adv.)\n\n *-Lmd Tfibgf\u00e9ial, Kumia\n\nV. If V\u00bb \ufb01mi  W\/o Venkappa Naik\n\nf   S\/0 Devappa Naik\n\n ~ ..  s\u00e9nx Bhavani Wlo Gangadhar Nail:\n\" A = Kamala wxo Narayan Nail:\n\nWrit Petition 4333:; ix 2:223 (LR   ~ \n\n\n\n6. Parwathi Wfo Manjunath Naik Respondm3_ts\n\n(By Sri P D Vishwanath, Adv. for E26;\nSri Nadiga Shivanadappa, GP for State)\n\nThis Writ Petition is \ufb01led under An.;25x227 of''ah\u00a7'jjjco\u00a7siim;ion: \" \npraying to quash the order {iated 20.6.2803 4 'ar.noX.;;re .A_ b}'._;he\"1and\"'.\n\nTribunal, Kumta.\n\nThis Writ petition having been [reserved '1'To;\"'(Z3rders,\u00bb'iiiz:V    L.\n\nthe following:\n OM53  \nPetitioners have soughtiifor_oissi1a*n3e::'of   of--certiorari to quash\n\nthe order dated 2o.5..j2\ufb02(>3  iA\u00ab.ig'~.;m  Land Tribunal,\n\nKumta  te\u00e9peofttiiiof \u00e9oiiieeziiiiod L$iiitis\"Vand also to issue a writ of\nmandamuvs-to irogis:ori\"potitioi:3;~:\u00e9  occupants of the petition schedule\n\nSands under  of Vtiho  Act to an exten: of H3\"! share in\n\n , ' all tlviciipetitioo scti\u00e9\u00e9u3e___pmpenics and to reject the application of 4\"'\n\n  Bhaai\u00a7i1\u00e9__W\/o Gangadhar Naik claiming exclusive right over\n\n  vinage.\n  one Venku Narayana Naik \ufb01le gand father of the\n\n  \"potitioneiwaixd the contesting respondents was in actual possession of the<\/pre>\n
n   lands as a tenant from 193162 and in this regard, RTC’. is<\/p>\n
  .i hgpodmed at armexure B. He had four sons by name Hanumantlua, Masti,<\/p>\n
 Devappa and Lakshman. Petitiogxers 1 to 3 are the sons of Hanumanth<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
and petitioners 4 to 7 are the children of Laxman Venku l\ufb01aik.<\/p>\n
Respondents 2 to 6 are the legal representatives of Smt <\/p>\n
Devappa Nailc. One Parameshwari Masti Naik viz., w!o_.tx\u00a7le$ti”i _<\/p>\n
son of Venku Narayana Naik had \ufb01led Form 7 for    it<\/p>\n
respect of the scheduled lands and she died iL;Asuelese.A L   .l<\/p>\n
i.e., sons of late Venku Narayana Nail: retrained _i.#IiIdiVid3:’.’k’
\nAfter their death, the family of Venkui
\n:21: date. As on 1.3.1974 au\u00a7\u00a7;*~;;z-so:jeefsgheeuleiiian\u00e9s were in
\nactual possession and cultivatiotxiioti”  There was no
\npartition by    member was in
\nseparate   Since the petitioners
\nwere in  of the schedule properties as<\/p>\n
tenants along’ withvvtlte _ottler”feit1\ufb02y members including the contesting<\/p>\n
 V. respontlettte,~ they  are application under S45 of the Land Reforms<\/p>\n
 ta5s.ct.geelci:t:gtAoc.ct1p:u1cy rights of all the petition schedule propexties along<\/p>\n
“of the family. Simultaneously, even the contesting<\/p>\n
 _ respondents ‘also filed application seeking grant of occupancy rights<\/p>\n
   .e>:clnsivel3!— to them. One Parameshwari Devappa Nail: \ufb01led Form 7 with<\/p>\n
 _.l’:*e\u00a7;*:ectl~’lto Sy.No.SO6flA3, 483!23A 1, 483!2C and 433\/3 in a single<\/p>\n
i   _.;t1:1-gixlicatiorx and the second application in Form 7 was tiled in respect of<\/p>\n
 the property in Heravatta Village regarding Sy.Nos,17flfB, 17\/2. 17.8, 18,<\/p>\n
19 & 20. The 4″‘ respondent Bhavani Gangadltar Naili also \ufb01led sepamte<\/p>\n
Form 7 for occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.5(}6\/IC of Karma<\/p>\n
Viliage. By order dated 26.12.1994, the Land Tribunal a\ufb01er ,iieving<\/p>\n
registered ail the applications of the petitioners as well as the <\/p>\n
respondents, passed an order granting occupancy rights to: the   it<\/p>\n
1z’3’d share each. According to the petitior1ers,–\u00a7’arar’;iesh’\\iI5ar;a’i  it<\/p>\n
Naik and Bhavani Gangadhar Naik made iifalee aria hivoiode <\/p>\n
\ufb01ling WP 6866f1994 and 8S64f199iiio:iiiixr1ing exomoiveii fig1tif_S”‘h:..r:epeet ‘V L’<\/p>\n
of certain lands. However,  a commoix.or’der, botii~theAvs(ii.t petitions
\nwere dismissed on 9.9.1998}    ohailenged in two writ<\/p>\n
appeals and the order dated:.9e.9.d]\u00a7f98V  by order dated<\/p>\n
26.2.2092,’ the–.rri\u00e9i;terdiJs%as–reioVrttided hack to the Land Tribunal. Pursuant
\nto the saiiie,  I;;tr1d’iiae”peseed the impugied order at anziexure
\nA. Hence,  .o-rid grounds,<\/p>\n
, (‘Heard the’~eo1insel: representing the parties as we-1} as the<\/p>\n
 Go\ufb01eriaziieht Ph\u00e9ader.\n<\/p>\n
It.__vis’  ergument of the petitioners’ counsel that it is nobody’s<\/p>\n
  : ease thetearlier a partition has taken place and rather, the status of the<\/p>\n
” f}i.’ni_lS;’ remahied joint as the name of Devappa Nails: was shown as Kartha<\/p>\n
Vi  ,   the records. It is further argued that the presumption is always in favour<\/p>\n
of jointness. Accordingly, in this context, he has relied upon the decision<\/p>\n
in the case of Indra Narayan Vs Reap Ntzrayan & 01-s – AIR 15i”ir’1jSC<\/p>\n
1962. It is further submitted that there eouid not have u<\/p>\n
there was a deed registered in favour of his daughter Bhavierti  it ”<\/p>\n
Nail: in the joint family property and rather’ ti\u00a7e”g,ift was greeted to’defei1t<\/p>\n
the rights of the petitioners. As per S,132a’ot”  Reforms  ._<\/p>\n
finding of the Tribunal based on the Cijirii~Court.”s orderx’-.5; r\u00a3tt\u00a71ity’V’aiid the ” V<\/p>\n
Civil Court is barred to giveerty  .OiS’7i1fA19?it was \ufb01led
\nwherein Bhavani was not thei’;;’ie.intiff_:.itii tiL:8t\u00a3i_tV for bare injunction
\nand the suit was d\u00a2;?1–g,\u00a7d injiiie  ilisiiinot binding on the
\nLand   sg;1%.5ee;1. The fact that
\nDevappe  in Sy.Nos.483i2, 483f2A,
\n483\/’3 ziitd of ii Manager by itself shows the joint
\nholding of and accordingly, the petitioners are<\/p>\n
entitied\u00bb to their sliere of the iaroperty. As such. the order of the Land<\/p>\n
 *  to tiieiiiseme, is tritiated. Since ail the properties are<\/p>\n
   the gift made in favour of Bhavani by Devappa Neil:<\/p>\n
is  {awe and more over, there is no such gift deed registered<\/p>\n
 in her ‘fasri;ur. As such, the Land Tribune} committed an error in granting<\/p>\n
” \u00ab . V’ oectipancy rights in her favour.\n<\/p>\n
Per contra, it is the argument of die counsel representing the<\/p>\n
respondents that from the year 1947 itself Devappa Naik is declared as a<\/p>\n
W’<\/p>\n
‘pmteeted tenant’ during the life time of his father. It is for the jiartiee<\/p>\n
alleging jointness to prove the same. Accordingly, in sugpertf it <\/p>\n
argument, learned counsel relied upon the decision in the ef   ._ i <\/p>\n
Krishnarao Ktmgo Vs Narayam pm: Kang-\ufb01e 3 ._.. l;4IR”I9l\u00a74 “J29 <\/p>\n
and Me’. Rkukhmabai Vs ma Lmumaraym’ & t’.?rs – A1i:;;:9\u00a7s0 SC ‘.235 A<\/p>\n
It is his further ease that the portion cf    in
\nfavour of the Municipality indziegites he exel1ie’iveh\/i held the
\ntenancy rights over the    learned counsel
\nsubrnitted that the     on the Land
\nTribunal, but theseiine ‘L*e:_\u00a3e:l\u20aceg1 into  In this context,
\nlearned co_u_n_eel_   ‘e:_\u00a7i\u00a3;iilili’e,il.i’of’ Chikkepuxtagamda Vs<\/p>\n
Gururtgia:’J{ao._~–Ii9l8i2’l'{E}  ‘ -l<\/p>\n
 is  \ufb01xiztheriei\u00e9ument that Devwpa Naik was acting as Kartha<\/p>\n
     of the properties but the tenanted lands were not<\/p>\n
imeritienetive\ufb01zee’ i!Via’aaetl1e exclusive property of Devappa. Even Bhavani<\/p>\n
   paid rentals to the landierd as a s’ub–tenant and<\/p>\n
l3″\u00bb-‘..__’eccerdi1:gi3{__ieontended that there is no error in the order of the Land<\/p>\n
  “:t’:;hunai;\n<\/p>\n
In the light of the arguments advanced, let me consider Whether the<\/p>\n
impugned ordef passed by the “fribunai requires interference.<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
Petitioners’ counsel has relied upon the provisions of the Bomliay<\/p>\n
Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act as regards the definition “‘peiotecte\u00e9-V  _<\/p>\n
tenant’ which says, if a person has been deemed to be_eig:ro_t:ecte’d.:tcnant  it<\/p>\n
under 3.3, 3A and 4 of the 1939 Act referred! to i;1:As’c1.aee;;1e;,’ ‘lieishell it c if<\/p>\n
recognised to be a protected tenant. Aeper S3, he shall Aiiviptotectedc V<\/p>\n
tenant in respect of any lands if he has’ the lande_i_co2r.tiii11oi,;sl\u00a7l’iifor it
\nperiod of not iess than six yeare.v_.;ireeedi1igithei  day of
\nJanuary 1938 or the \ufb01rs! day oil’     cultivated such
\nlands personally     even the case of
\nthe respondent    ._Naik was shown in the
\nHaklmpatt’e.19tiGthe:ihes’in-rt.giiged the property to Kumta
\nUrban  in  in Sy.Nos.483 and 506!1B.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, another  it  24.7.1968 in respect of six properties<\/p>\n
_ which not in arty  support the case of the respondent that she is<\/p>\n
   \u00abeztclusiixep ottizer of the property in question. According to the<\/p>\n
 a ‘protected tenant’ during 194′? as submitted by<\/p>\n
 the res1.%onde_tit’eViAcoiinselhirnself. Ifit is really so, as per the provisions of<\/p>\n
 AABomhe’3*._.ii’enancy & Agricultural Lands Act, he should have been a<\/p>\n
i  teoaaot, and cultivation six ycaae prior to 1938 or 1945 but, he<\/p>\n
  as ‘protected tenant’ as on 1947. Then necessarily it cannot be<\/p>\n
it \u00bb.  \ufb01aid that he was holding the property exclusively as a tenant and the father<\/p>\n
of Devappa Nail: viz, Venku Narayana Nail: should have been 3<\/p>\n
3%”\n<\/p>\n
‘protected tenant’ and if it is so, the properties though registeredhin the
\nname of Devappa Naik, should have been in favour of and on <\/p>\n
the joint family.\n<\/p>\n
The Land Tzibunal in its order has observed, exeep-t” S\u00a7*.1*~T:(_i;’4v&?’g3;’i2Is,,7’i _& it ‘\u00bb<\/p>\n
483\/2A and 48313, the other properties caon\ufb01otibee termed’ <\/p>\n
properties as there was no cogent evidence on  it has ‘azsd <\/p>\n
observed that there is no such divisioza._:of_the oiopenies  joint it<\/p>\n
family members. 30, the vt’\u00ab1’3?.iTril_:11:1aliiiis’ to  effect that
\nthere is jointness in the  es’  petitionezs. But, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal has also observed thhetif    are joint family<\/p>\n
propertiesineiudiil\u00e9=fr;f1eL’sehedoie”properties, immediately after the (teeth
\nof Venku Naujayana \u00b0NoiRA:th.ere”..wou}d have been an entry. But there is<\/p>\n
on13{Va:~.3a entry htiespeet of three of the properties mentioned above.<\/p>\n
V is  an entry on 22.7.1966 but there is no mentioning of<\/p>\n
A i”‘ti1e\u00ab:humbers. However, the Land Tribunal has noted that<\/p>\n
‘pioteeiegtriglitsi has been mentioned in favour of Devappa Venku Naik<\/p>\n
     55.4973 and 3955 and no where it is entered in the capacity of a<\/p>\n
 of \ufb01le joint family. Based on the same, the Land Tribunal was of<\/p>\n
V’   tl\u00e9e View that the schedule properties were all separate tenanted lands of<\/p>\n
Devappa Nail; and as such, he had a right to gift the property in favour of<\/p>\n
his daughter i.e., Sy.No.506f1 to an extent of 1.28 acres. Further it<\/p>\n
W’<\/p>\n
appears on the basis of the consent given by the applicants, the  in<\/p>\n
Sy.No.2G to the extent of 1.3′? acres was granted in favour of<\/p>\n
Hanurnanth Nails: and legal representatives of Laxman  .i’L:’Also,.  V.<\/p>\n
noting that property in Sy.No.483f2K , 2A 1  herited  ii ” it<\/p>\n
and that residential houses of the legal tepregenteiix\u00e9es.   tiiei<\/p>\n
same has been ganted in their fav.\u00bb,ro1zr__ \ufb02iusiiideoiivinge.  the  L.<\/p>\n
tenented properties via, Sy.No.50-61K  . _V \u00a2_ ‘
\nin the decision in the ease orxeigig  & Ofs 349 Cluanan<\/p>\n
Paswan & Ors –. AIR 19544iSt?_’34e.\u00a3~i1e\u00a7’ Ag;  has held that the<\/p>\n
decree passed withotit  ‘Tfiie order of the Land<\/p>\n
Tn’bunal1._is  decree. However, in this regard it is
\nto be noteti  got powers to grant ittterim order<\/p>\n
iikemanction aniI..tlieiAmendrnent Aet bars the jurisdiction of the Civil<\/p>\n
it  of the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the order<\/p>\n
A “~ pasisetixbyv4ttaeV:VCtiiz.-‘t–:Whioh is not competent, is non-est.<\/p>\n
V Althoughiiit is argued by the respondent’s counsel referring to the<\/p>\n
  ‘in the ease of Gorie Gouri Naidu (minor) & Am’ Vs<\/p>\n
  ~f_* iiaaoama Bodamma & Ors – ma 1997.51: 393 inter-party judgment<\/p>\n
given by the competent court binds the parties even if it is erroneous and<\/p>\n
V  the fact remains that by virtue of the amendment act when the Land<\/p>\n
W”\n<\/p>\n
Tribunal is given power to adjudicate the rights even<\/p>\n
possession, the parties have approached the Civii Court   _<\/p>\n
order which has no jurisdiction. More over, the  otiostion   <\/p>\n
also not been defended by Bhavani Gangadhar who iitnot’ ‘ax .’<\/p>\n
the original suit in the cm’; csiurug such’; \u00a7isua:iop,~’;:aeg\u00a7s\u00a7a:vi\u00a7\u00a7g the  _<\/p>\n
\ufb01nding given by the Civil Court by  mjun\u00a2::\u00a7n&’pa.{es iiot\ufb02liiztd the
\npanics. Even though it is  -Npaik teas  ‘protected
\ntenant’ as on 194?, he does     of ‘protected
\ntenant’ as provided    the presumption
\nis always in fajaloitfof  ‘<\/p>\n
     of Makium Sing]: (D) by LR:\n<\/p>\n
Vs Kulmmt LSZe’;_;gIe_- 351$’ zga\u00e9iiggc ms, al\ufb01tough it is observed that the<\/p>\n
 could not i})1’6S’1i’.fned to be a joint famiiy property moiety<\/p>\n
in    exiotenoe of joint hindu family, the fact remains that one who<\/p>\n
iiasseftsp   the property is a joint family property.<\/p>\n
 _ _  Krisimarao Kangcfs case referred to supra, the three<\/p>\n
\u00ab   iudgeee\ufb01ench of the Supreme Court has held that the burden shifts to the<\/p>\n
   H aileging self acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property<\/p>\n
 was acquired without the aid of the joint famiiy funds. The fact that when<\/p>\n
the respondents failed to prove tl1e):f\ufb011’e protected tenants as mentioned in<\/p>\n
the enabling provision, though it is mentioned so as an L3.1948, it was for
\nthem to establish that he was a protected tenant as prescribed. The thrust<\/p>\n
of ihe argument of the respondent’s counsel is that the  the<\/p>\n
schedule lands is held by Devappa Naik exclusively as <\/p>\n
established merely by producing some documents  ozfi\ufb01ae <\/p>\n
joint family. Might be that there would   15;’   5<\/p>\n
of the joint family but that itself weuid mi 2;e\u00a7”su1=:ici.~;aiz”.:m’f ham  is _<\/p>\n
holding the tenanted land exclusiv\u00e9iyjfu the ante;-gsse 51* ugiget fmnilyi
\nEven the Tribunal has also”‘i:9t    properly.\n<\/p>\n
Mom over, it is for Devappe    to establish\n\nthe fact that     Tends exclusivety held by\n\n<\/pre>\n
him in the cixcn{i:1st5ii\u00a2e*sii:;r  oiiie ratio laid down by the i<\/p>\n
AP\u20acXC01n’iinS\ufb02\u00a7Bv\ufb02!’Adi: Knslxn’  <\/p>\n
.. _  _In   the  above the impugned order of the<\/p>\n
   is remitted to me Land Tribunal, Kumta<\/p>\n
 iv  dispch  aecori .  with law and the cmnphance’ of the provhions<\/p>\n
  Egule 17 of the Land Refonns Rules, after a\ufb01btding<\/p>\n
C . *  \u00a39  the parties. Petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
I\ufb01d\ufb01<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ganapathy S\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008 Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALURE Dated this the 23″‘ day of May, 2003 2’ f , Before 71:3 HUMBLE MR Jvszmv: \u00a7;UL\u00a3zVA;\u00a7i\u00a7 ii4,4i1;\u00a7.IJ V Between: 1. Ganapathy S10 Hanumanth . By Gangu Wfo Ganapathy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-172005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGanapathy S\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganapathy S\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-07T06:57:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganapathy S\\\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-07T06:57:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2056,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008\",\"name\":\"Ganapathy S\\\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-07T06:57:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganapathy S\\\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ganapathy S\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganapathy S\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-07T06:57:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganapathy S\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-07T06:57:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008"},"wordCount":2056,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008","name":"Ganapathy S\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-07T06:57:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-so-hanumanth-naik-vs-the-land-tribunal-on-28-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganapathy S\/O Hanumanth Naik vs The Land Tribunal on 28 May, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=172005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172005\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}