IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA W.P. NO.18002/2012 (LR-SEC 48-A) BETWEEN:
SMT.PUSHPA S. SHETY W/O DR.SHYAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT MALLAR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.SHRIHARI, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY 3. SHEIK MOHAMMED SIDDIKI SAHEB S/O ABDUL VAHAB AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS MALAR VILLAGE, UDUPI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRIKUMAR S.V., AGA. FOR R1 & R2; SRI U.S.YOGESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2011 IN LRY-106-277-TRI-4656/81-82 ON THE FILE OF LAND TRIBUNAL AT UDUPI, FILED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The sole respondent in LRY-106-277-TRI-4656/81-82 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Kapu Hobli, Udupi Taluk, has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 27.12.2011 passed therein.
2. The petitioner herein is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.46/12 measuring to an extent of 12 cents situated in Mallar village, Kapu Hobli, Udupi Taluk. It is seen that subsequent to the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the 3rd respondent herein filed Form No.7 contending that the aforesaid land was under the cultivation of his father for more than 40 years prior to the date of amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. In the said application, in the column mentioned to identify his occupation, he has declared himself as a Merchant and in Column No.6 meant to show the period for which the applicant was cultivating the land as tenant, he would state that his father was in occupation and cultivation of that land for more than 40 years. However, as on the date of amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, his father was no more and he admits that he was not the cultivator of the land and there was no Geni for the land. In that view, the matter was taken up for consideration in the presence of petitioner and 3rd respondent in the aforesaid proceedings and same has culminated in an order being passed granting occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent which is challenged in this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the contesting 3rd respondent (alleged tenant) and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
4. On going through the material available on record, Form No.7 would clearly disclose that the 3rd respondent is a Merchant by profession. He admits that there is no Geni for the said land after the death of his father. It is also accepted by him in the application that his father as on the date of the amended Act to land reforms Act coming into force on 31.3.1974 was not a tenant on the appointed date and it is not devolved on him by way of succession on the appointed date.
5. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal in recognizing the 3rd respondent as tenant is erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have considered the intention of the legislative in bringing aforesaid amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act which is with an intention to ensure that agricultural coolies who are continued to work as agricultural labourers on the land should become owners of the same by virtue of this provision. If that is considered, as on the appointed date, 3rd respondent’s father was no more and Chalgeni or Malgeni right was not transferred to him and there is nothing on record to show that he was a tenant. In addition to that he has declared himself to be a Merchant.
6. In that view of the matter, the benefit which is provided under the aforesaid Act is not available to the 3rd respondent herein.
Accordingly, by allowing this writ petition, the order of the Land Tribunal, Udupi, dated 27.12.2011 in LRY-106-2787-TRI- 4656/81-82 is hereby set aside.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: