IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.12430 OF 2016 (LR-RES) BETWEEN SRI. RAMESH SHETTY S/O SMT KANAKANGI SHEDTHY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT ‘PARAMA’ OPP.HOTEL HARIPRASAD (NH-66) KUNDAPUR, KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (By Sri. PRASAD HEGDE K B, ADV) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M. S. BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KARKALA, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 104 BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. THE TAHSILDAR KARKALA TALUK KARKALA UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 104.
4. SMT. KAMALAKSHI HEGGADTHI W/O LATE ANANDA THOLAR MAJOR 5. SRI. AMARANATH THOLAR S/O LATE ANANDA THOLAR MAJOR.
6. SRI NITHYANANDA THOLAR S/O LATE ANANDA THOLAR MAJOR.
7. SRI. PREMANANDA THOLAR S/O LATE ANANDA THOLAR MAJOR.
8. SMT. ASHWINI THOLAR D/O LATE ANANDA THOLAR MAJOR.
9. SMT. ANITHA HEGDE D/O LATE ANANDA THOLAR MAJOR.
10. SMT. KIRAN THOLAR D/O LATE ANANDA THOLAR MAJOR.
RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 10 ARE RESIDENTS OF ANITHA NILAYA, KUCHOOR VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK KUCHOOR POST UDUPI DIST - 574104 (RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 10 DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.03.2019).
APPURAYA NAYAK SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 11. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE APPURAYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
12. MOHINI D/O LATE APPURAYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
13. BHARATHI D/O LATE APPURAYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
14. SARASWATHI A D/O LATE APPURAYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
15. LATHA D/O LATE APPURAYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
16. KEERTHANA S PRABHU D/O LATE APPURAYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
17. SANDYA NAYAK D/O LATE APPURAYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO. 11 TO 16 ARE RESIDENTS OF HEBRI VILLAGE NEAR FISH MARKET, HEBRI POST, AJIKARU HOBLI, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 112.
... RESPONDENTS (By SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K, ADV FOR C/R11 TO R-17 SRI. B.S. BUDIHAL, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2019 R-4 TO R-10 ARE DELETED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM R-2 - LAND TRIBUNAL, WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER AT ANNEX-A DATED 27.02.2016 MADE IN TRL NO.2160/76-77 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner herein is said to be purchaser of 65 cents of land in Sy.No.3 of Chara village, Ajakara Hobli, Karkala Taluk.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the aforesaid extent of land from the original land owner Anand Tholar in the year 1965. It is stated that subsequently an application is filed by the tenants seeking occupancy right in respect of the same land in proceedings bearing No.TRL 2160/76-77 where the wife and children of the original landlord Anand Tholar who are respondents 4 to 10 herein have given no objection for granting occupancy right in respect of entire extent of Sy.No.3 of Chara village in favour of the applicant Appuraya Nayak who had filed the said application as legal heir of his father Narayana Naik, original tenant. The said application being allowed pursuant to no objection on the part of landlord, the tenant Appuraya Nayak has become the owner of entire 3 acres 31 cents of land in Sy.No.3 of Chara village, which includes the land purchased by the petitioner herein. The order passed by the Land Tribunal in TRL 2160/76-77 dated 14.10.1981 was subject matter of various litigations, ultimately resting with the present writ petition, which is filed impugning the order passed in TRL 2160/76-77 after the same was remanded for reconsideration by the Tribunal, wherein the order impugned dated 27.2.2016 is passed.
3. When this writ petition is pending consideration before this Court, the petitioner and respondents 11 to 17 have come up with a Compromise Petition wherein they would contend that the dispute between petitioner, purchaser of portion of property in Sy.No.3 and original tenants have come to an amicable settlement with respect to dispute regarding 65 cents of land in Sy.No.3.
In this writ petition they would state that the legal representatives of original landlord who are respondents 4 to 10 herein have no manner of right, title and interest in the said property, inasmuch as, they have already given no objection for grant of said land in favour of tenants. They are only formal parties and no relief is claimed.
4. While filing Compromise Petition, a Memo is filed by the petitioner for deleting respondents 4 to 10. The memo is taken on record. Ordered accordingly. Thereafter, Compromise Petition which is field by the parties is taken on record, wherein the petitioner herein would contend that out of 65 cents of land purchased by him, he would retain 37 cents for himself and would give up his title to an extent of 28 cents of land in favour of legal representatives of original tenant Narayana Naik, who are respondents 11 to 17 herein. The Compromise Petition also includes a sketch got prepared by licenced surveyor of Taluk Office, Karkala, which is with reference to Sy.No.3/1 of Chara Village, Ajakara Hobli, Udupi District, wherein 65 cents of land in Sy.No.3/1 is divided into two portions. The portion referred to by Roman I measures 37 cents and is retained by the petitioner in this petition and portion identified by Roman II measuring 28 cents is given up in favour of contesting respondents 11 to 17.
5. In these proceedings, petitioner is present before the Court in person. So far as respondents 11 to 17 are concerned, they are represented by one Ravindra Prabhu who is said to be the son-in-law of respondent No.11 and also power of attorney holder of respondents 11 to 17. The power of attorney which is executed by respondents 11 to 17 in favour of Ravidra Prabhu is also placed before the Court.
6. By taking the power of attorney of Ravidra Prabhu and the Compromise Petition which is entered into between the petitioner and respondents 11 to 17 on record, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondents 11 to 17. Both the parties who are present before the Court shall affix their signatures to the order sheet, which shall be identified by their respective Counsel.
The learned counsel who had filed Memo for deleting respondents 4 to 10 shall make necessary endorsement in the cause title with reference to deletion of their names pursuant to order passed by this Court this day.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp