IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.3462 OF 2016 (KLRA) BETWEEN:
SRI MUNIYAPPA SON OF BUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RESIDING AT: SHIVANAPURA VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 114.
(BY SRI: B.R. VISWANATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANT 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/TAHASILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT.
SMT. KAMMARUNNISA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
3. ZAHIDUNNISA WIFE OF LATE S.A. SHAKHADRI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
4. SYED AKMAL SON OF LATE S.A. SHAKHADRI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
5. SYED AKRAM SON OF LATE S.A. SHAKHADRI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
6. SYED MUKRAM SON OF LATE S.A. SHAKHADRI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
7. SYED MOUZAM SON OF LATE S.A. SHAKHADRI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
8. SYEDA AMTUAL ASMA DAUGHTER OF LATE S.A. SHAKHADRI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
9. SYED AMTUAL AMENA DAUGHTER OF LATE S.A. SHAKHADRI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
10. SYED AMTUAL IFFATH DAUGHTER OF LATE S.A. SHAKHADRI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
11. NOOR AYESHA DAUGHTER OF LATE S.A. SHAKHADRI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
12. S.B. MUNAVURUDDIN SON OF LATE SYED BABU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT ADJACENT TO IBRAHIM KHALLEULLAH MOSQUE BEHIND SOFIYA HIGH SCHOOL 4TH CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR, K.G. HALLI SHAMPUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 045.
13. S.B. ANWARUDDIN SON OF LATE SYED BABU AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
14. S.B. ATHURUDDIN SON OF LATE SYED BABU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.13 AND 14 ARE RESIDING AT SHIVANPURA VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 114.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI: A.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R14) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.7168 OF 2000 (KLRA) DATED 02.03.2016.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.7168 of 2000 by the learned Single Judge, in allowing the writ petition and quashing the proceedings initiated by the third respondent, the third respondent therein has filed this appeal.
2. A reading of the impugned order of the Tribunal would indicate that, there were four members in the Tribunal, out of that, two of them were in favour of granting occupancy rights and two were in favour of rejecting the application. Ultimately, it was ordered to keep the matter as reserved. Questioning the same, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single judge while considering the matter, came to the view that, claiming of tenancy rights was not supported by any material document and therefore, the claim for occupancy rights ought to have been rejected.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that when two members were in favour and two were against granting of occupancy rights, the learned Single Judge should have decided as to which order has to be accepted. Therefore, considering the matter on merits against the interest of the appellant, is incorrect.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents dispute the same.
5. On hearing learned Counsels, we are of the view that it is just and appropriate that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal, especially, in view of the fact that there were no complete documents that were available. Even the learned Single Judge has noticed that some of the records were destroyed and some were available.
6. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent also submits that, it would be more appropriate in the interest of both the parties that the matter has to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh.
7. In view of the submissions made, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 02.03.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.7168 of 2000 by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 01.02.1989 passed in LRF(N) SP No.266/1975-76 by the Land Tribunal, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. Both the parties shall adduce additional material, if any, in support of their respective cases.
8. At this stage, the learned Government Advocate submits that subsequent to the assembly election being held, the Land Tribunal has to be re-constituted. He submits that the same would be done within a period of six months.
9. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal to take up this case and dispose off the same within a period of six months after its constitution and on the parties appearing before the Land Tribunal.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE bgn/-