Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.37509/2012 (LR) BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE U. DASABHAT AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS.
REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI. U. SRIPATHI BHAT S/O LATE D. DASABHAT AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO 7-8, HARIDASA NILAYA BADA VILLAGE, UCHILA POST UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 117.
2 . SRI. U. SRIPATHI BHAT S/O LATE D. DASABHAT AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO. 7-8, HARIDASA NILAYA BADA VILLAGE, UCHILA POST UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 117.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.N. NITHISH, ADV., ON BEHALF OF SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 117 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 . SRI. KITTU BELCHADA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 2(a). SMT. RADHA BELCHADTHI W/O LATE KITTU BELCHADA SINCE DEAD 2(b). SMT. KAMALA D/O LATE KITTU BELCHADA MAJOR.
2(c). SMT. RATHNA D/O LATE KITTU BELCHADA MAJOR.
2(d). SMT. ROHINI D/O LATE KITTU BELCHADA MAJOR.
2(e). SRI. KRISHNA S/O LATE KITTU BELCHADA MAJOR.
2(f). SMT. VIMALA D/O LATE KITTU BELCHADA MAJOR.
RESIDENTs OF BADA VILLAGE UCHILA POST, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 117.
(BY SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, AGA FOR R-1;
…RESPONDENTS SRI. SHOBITH N SHETTY, ADV., FOR R-2(b-f) V/O DATED:16.07.2019 R-2(b-f) ARE THE LRS OF DEAD R-2(a)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E DTED:20.12.2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R One Sri. Kittu Belchada (since deceased) had filed an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.41/17A2 measuring 30 cents amongst other lands situated in Bada Village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District. Jurisdictional Land Tribunal by order dated 02.12.2011 (Annexure-E) has granted occupancy rights in favour of third respondent, which is under challenge in the present writ petition by owners of the said land by raising several grounds.
2. The landlord and tenant have entered into a settlement and as such a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC and Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India has been filed whereunder parties have agreed to the following terms and conditions:
“I. The Petitioners and the Legal heirs of 2nd Respondent admit that 2nd Respondent was tenant of only 15 Cents of Land in S.No.41/17AP1 of Bada Village, Kaup Taluk, Udupi District and the same is shown by letters ABCD int eh Annexed sketch. Said 15 Cents is the Southern portion of S.No.41/17AP1 more fully Shown in Yellow Colour. The Sketch enclosed shall read part of this compromise petition.
II. The Legal heirs of 2nd Respondent will not have any right, title or interest in remaining portion of S.No.41/17AP1 since the said property is not a tenanted land and it is in the actual possession of the Petitioners.
III. The Legal heirs of 2nd Respondent have voluntarily agreed that they will shift their family deities which is situated in the property of the petitioner to their properties.
IV. The Parties respectively submit that they have entered into the compromise having regard to the true state of affairs.”
It is agreed upon by both parties that an extent of 15 cents in Sy.No.41/17AP1 (old Sy.No.41/17A2) is tenanted land.
4. A memo is filed enclosing photocopy of identity card issued by Election Commission of India to establish the identity of second petitioner. Said memo along with enclosure is placed on record. He is also identified by Sri.K.N.Nitish, learned counsel representing the petitioners. Respondent No.2(b) to 2(d) and 2(f) are represented by respondent No.2(e)-power of attorney holder executed by respondent Nos.2(b) to 2(d) and 2(f). Signatures found on the vakalathnama is compared with signature found on compromise petition and it is noticed that second petitioner has affixed his signature in Hindi language whereas in vakalathnama petitioner has affixed his signature in English language. On being confronted, he has submitted that he was residing at Mumbai and as such he has affixed his signature in Hindi in the compromise petition, whereas in vakalathnama he has affixed his signature in English language. Hence, he seeks leave of the Court to affix his signature in English language also in the compromise petition. Hence, he was permitted. Signature now affixed is compared with the signature found in the vakalathnama and it is found to be one and the same.
5. Both parties are present before Court and they admit terms of compromise petition entered into. They also state that out of their own free will without any force, threat or coercion and volition they have affixed their signatures to the compromise petition and have entered into said compromise petition. In the light of their submission, this Court finds there is no impediment to accept the said compromise petition.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
Next >