IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.63495-63497/2016 (LR-RES) BETWEEN 1. PARASAPPA, S/O LATE MIDAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. BASAVANYAPPA S/O BHUDYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS (a) SMT.GUTHYAMMA W/O LATE BASAVANYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS (b) VIRUPAKSHA S/O LATE BASAVANYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 3. NAGAPPA S/O GUTHYAMMA DEAD BY HIS LRS (a) CHANDRASHEKARA S/O LATE NAGAPPA OCC:AGRICULTURIST AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS (b) PARASHURAM S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS (c) SHANMUGAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST AND R/O UDRI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 429. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri S.V.PRAKASH, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, SORABA TALUK, SORABA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
3. BADAKANA BHIMAPPA, S/O HUCHAPPA, 4. VEERAPPA GOWDA AND SAVITHRAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY THEIR LRS.
(a) BASAVALINGAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE VEERAPPA GOWDA AGED BOUT 80 YEARS (b) SANGAPPA GOWDA DEAD BY HIS LRS (1)SHIVALINGA GOWDA S/O LATE SANGAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS (2)CHANUKYA GOWDA S/O LATE SANGAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS (c) PUTTAPPA GOWDA DEAD BY HIS LRS (1) SAMPATH KUMAR S/O PUTTAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS (2) DESAI GOWDA S/O PUTTAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENTS 3, 4(a), 4[b(1&2)], 4[c(1&2)] ARE AGRICULTURIST AND ALL ARE R/O UDRI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER DT. 8.3.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.25724/1998 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CONTEST THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Petitioners are seeking review of the order dated 08.03.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25724/1993. They were not parties to the said writ petition. Their grievance is that though each of the petitioners had been granted 5 acres 23 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.204 of Udri Village, Soraba Taluk, Shivamogga District on 26.08.1976, without impleading them as party respondents and without providing any opportunity to them to have their say in the matter, the writ petition filed by Sri Badakana Bhimappa - respondent No.3 herein came to be allowed setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting his application seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of the very same land. This Court has remanded the matter for fresh consideration of Form No.7 filed by respondent No.3 – Badakana Bhimappa in accordance with law.
2. Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the lands in question were excess land surrendered by respondent No.4 Veerappa Gowda and his wife Savithramma and upon such surrender, the land was allotted to landless persons in terms of the provisions contained under Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and that was how, each of the petitioners were granted 5 acres 23 guntas of land vide order dated 26.08.1976. It is further urged by him that after the grant, names of the grantees/petitioners herein were recorded in the revenue records and they have continued to be in possession of the same. That being so, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.3 whose application filed in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of said land as tenant had been rightly dismissed by the Tribunal way back on 23.08.1976 having kept quiet till 1993, filed Writ Petition No.25724/1993 before this Court, that too without impleading the present petitioners as party respondents. However, without noticing the said fact and as the grant made in favour of petitioners herein was not brought to the notice of this Court, this Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also points out by referring to the order dated 08.03.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25724/1993, particularly to the last sentence in paragraph 8 of the order which states that the Tribunal might consider the direction issued by this Court as a direction to confer occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3, in which event fresh enquiry ordered could only be a formality and the rights of the petitioners would be seriously jeoparadized.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who has taken notice for respondents 1 & 2, I find that vide order dated 08.03.2007 passed in W.P.No.25724/1993, this Court has only remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration of the application filed by respondent No.3 herein - Badakana Bhimappa in Form No.7 in accordance with law. The direction issued is to pass a fresh order. There is no direction issued to the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in favour of Badakana Bhimappa. The matter has to be considered on merits by the Tribunal. If the petitioners are grantees of land which forms part of same survey number in respect whereof respondent No.3 – Badakana Bhimappa has claimed occupancy right by filing Form No.7, it would be open for them to appear before the Tribunal and request the Tribunal to provide them an opportunity to have their say in the matter. Whereupon, the Tribunal, I am sure, would consider the same in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to all parties including the applicant – Badakana Bhimappa. Making this position clear, these writ petitions are disposed of declining to interfere with the order dated 08.03.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25724/1993.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondents 1 & 2 within three weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS