IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.NO.24197/2012(LR-SEC-38) BETWEEN 1. SRI BABANNA PURUSHA AGED 80 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATA PURUSHA, HARASALIKE HOUSE, KAROPADY VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.
2. SRI MOHAMED SHARIF AGED 40 YEARS, S/O MOHAMED, MOMBADY HOUSE, KAROPADY VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMET OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O GURUVAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
3(a) SRI SADASHIVA @ PAKEERA ACHARY, MAJOR, S/O LATE GOWRAMMA, R/O JANATHA COLONY, KANYANA POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D. K. - 574 279.
3(b) SRI GOPALA ACHARY MAJOR, S/O LATE GOWRAMMA, R/O PILICHANDIGUDDE, KANYANA POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D. K. - 574 279.
3(c) SRI NARAYANA ACHARY MAJOR, S/O LATE GOWRAMMA, R/O MAMBADY HOUSE, KAROPADY POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D. K. - 574 279.
3(d) SRI SUNDARA ACHARY MAJOR, S/O LATE GOWRAMMA, R/O PALNEER HOUSE, KAROPADY POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D. K. - 574 279. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI MANMOHAN.P.N, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a to d) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.8.2001 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/LAND TRIBUNAL, BANTWAL IN DHAL NO.19/1982-83 IN SO FAR AS THE GRANT OF 4 CENTS OF LAND IN SY NO.299/1B OF KOROPADY VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED 14.12.2006 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BANTWAL AS PER ANNEXURE-A1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners herein are impugning the order dated 30.08.2001 passed in D.H.A.L. No.19/1982-83 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Bantwal and also the correction order passed in the very same proceedings on 14.12.2006.
2. The brief facts leading to this case are that petitioner No.1 herein is claiming himself to be a chalageni tenant of various survey numbers of Karopady village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 filed an application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of several lands belonging to Muguli Ramakrishna Bhat S/o Shankar Bhat, Padhekallu Vishnu Bhat S/o Ganapathi Bhat, Padhekallu Vishnu Bhat S/o Krishna Bhat and Padhekallu Narayana Bhat S/o Vishnu Bhat in TNC No.2915/74-5, which came to be allowed by order dated 13.09.1978 where 11 items of lands including Sy.No.299/1B measuring to an extent of 28 cents and 299/1E measuring 21 cents.
3. Subsequently, 299/1B and Sy.No.299/1E were renumbered as Sy.No.299/1P12. Out of 49 cents, petitioner No.1 sold 23 cents of land in favour of one Mohammed and 21 cents in favour of one Khathijamma and remaining extent of 5 cents of land was sold in favour petitioner No.2 herein vide sale deed dated 25.06.2009. Subsequently, it is seen from the records that an application in Form No.2A filed by respondent No.3-Gowramma W/o Guruvappa Achary for grant of land bearing Sy.No.299/1 to an extent of 20 cents of land under Section 38(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (for short Áct’) on the premise that she is an agricultural labourer and she was residing in that land.
4. The said application was considered by the Land Tribunal in the presence of the land owner Sri Padhekallu Narayan Bhat, Karopady village, where the very same land lord who had conceded grant of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner also conceded grant of 05 cents of land in Sy.No.299/1B in favour of Smt.Gowramma, which has resulted in the order dated 30.08.2001 being passed in D.H.A.L. 19:1982-83 which is sought to be challenged in this proceedings on the premise that the grant of 05 cents of land in Sy.No.299/1B is with reference to the same extent of land which is already considered in his favour in earlier round of litigation initiated by petitioner No.1 in Form No.7 where his claim for 28 cents in Sy.No.299/1B is accepted. Therefore, the application of respondent No.3-Gowramma for the very same land to an extent of 05 cents should not have been considered.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and as well as the contesting respondent.
6. This Court would observe that the application of petitioner No.1 before the Land Tribunal was in Form No.7 as chalageni tenant. However, with reference to respondent No.3-Gowramma is concerned, she is an agricultural labourer and as such she had right to seek grant of land in which she was an agricultural labourer, which she has claimed by filing Form No.2A, which is rightly considered by the Land Tribunal, with no objection from the original landlord. Therefore, the objection raised by petitioner No.1 herein on the ground that the said land is part of the land granted in his favour cannot be considered in this proceedings in as much as though the claim of the petitioner was considered as chalageni tenant, the right of respondent No.3 in respect of the same land as agricultural labourer cannot be denied and therefore, the order of the Land Tribunal which is in the name of grantee to an extent of 05 cents in Sy.No.299/1B of Karopady village, Bangtwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, which is subsequently corrected on 14.12.2006 cannot be disturbed. Hence, no interference is called for in the order impugned of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
7. With reference to correction to the husband name of respondent No.3 which was earlier shown as Guruva Poojary instead of Guruva Achary cannot be interfered with by this Court in this writ petition.
Sd/- JUDGE TL