: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

WP No.1528/2003 (LR)

BETWEEN

1. SRI ABDUL LATIF IMAM MUJAWAR SINCE DECEASED BY LRS a) SRI SALAR S/O ABDUL LATIF MUJAWAR AGE: 64 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. b) SRI KAMAL S/O ABDUL LATIF MUJAWAR AGE: 46 YRS, OCC: DRIVER R/O NEAR MEERASAHEB DARGA JUGULEWADA, H.NO.8266, MIRAJ DIST. SANGLI c) SMT. AMINABI FARIDDIN SHERIL MASALAT AGE: 61 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM d) SMT. SARABI BURANUDDIN KHALIF AGE: 51 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM e) SMT. REHAMATBI W/O SHANSHUDDIN MUJAWAR AGE: 41 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK : 2 :

R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI B S KAMATE, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL ATHANI BY ITS CHAIRMAN ATHANI, DIST. BELGAUM

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

3. SRI HAZARAT MASABI DARGA BY ITS MUTHAWALLI JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM

4. SRI IMAM APPALAL GADAKARI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS a) SMT. ANAVARABI W/O BABASAHEB MULLA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK H.NO.4261, R/O JALAGAR GALLI BELGAUM b) SMT. RAMJANABI W/O MUTTA JAMAKHANE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O UGARKHURD, TAL: ATHANI DIST.BELGAUM c) BABASAHEB IMAM GADAKARI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE : 3 :

R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM d) MUNIRABAI W/O MAHAMMAD NAIKWADI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O H.NO.4536, CHALAWAD GALLI AT & POST: MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI e) SMT. PYARANABI W/O ADAM MULLA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O TALUK: DIST. BELGAUM f) SMT. DALOCHANABI W/O MAYER MULLA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O CHINCHALI TALUK: RAIBAG DIST. BELGAUM g) SRI. AMID IMAM GADAKARI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

(g1) SMT. MUMTAJ W/O HAMID GADAKARI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM

5. SMT. AKKATAI D/O IRAPPA SHAGANE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM

6. SMT. BAYAKKA W/O RAMU BILLURE SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS a) SMT. KUSHAKKA W/O MAHADEV MINACHE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM : 4 :

b) SMT. INDU W/O BHARAMA HULUDE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM c) SMT. VIMAL W/O ANNAPPA DADAWADE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM d) SMT. KAMALA W/O VITHAL CHOUGALA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O TAPOWADE, TALUK: SHIROL DIST. KOLHAPUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE) e) SMT. GODA W/O RAJU PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM f) MISS NANDA D/O RAMU BILLURE DESAI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM g) SRI CHIDANAND S/O RAMU BILLURE DESAI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM

7. SRI MUSHIF @ KAKA ABDUL GADAKARI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM

8. SMT. KALEELA ABDUL GADAKARI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JUGUL, : 5 :

TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM

9. SMT. HUNJA ABDUL GADAKARI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O JUGUL, TALUK: ATHANI DIST. BELGAUM

10. SRI KHALEEM SIKANDAR MUJAWAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O H.NO.558, NEAR RAHUL VIDEO SATARMALA, ICHALAKARANJI TALUK: HATKANAGALA DIST. KOLHAPUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE) ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT K. VIDYAVATHI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI R.B. ANNEPANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4(c) TO R4 (g1) R7, R8, & R9; R3, R6(a) TO (c), R6(e) TO R6(g), R10, R4(d), R4(e) R4(f), R4(a) ARE SERVED; PETITION R5-DISMISSED; R4(b) & R4(j)-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF , PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 21.4.77 PASSED BY R1/LAND TRIBUNAL AT ANNEXURE-C AND ALSO THE ORDER DT. 26.11.2002 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: : 6 :

ORDER

The petitioners approached this Court calling in question the order passed by the land Tribunal dated

26.11.2002 in TNC/T/SR/842+3809+KLR/DI/SR-81 marked at Annexure-G.

2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent remained absent. I have also heard the arguments of the learned AGA appearing for respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

3. The brief facts available from the records are that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed Form No.7 invoking the jurisdiction of the land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing re-survey No. 430/1 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas and also in re-survey

No.491/11 measuring 2 acres 11 guntas of Jagal Village,

Athani Taluk. They respectively filed their application on

19.08.1974 and 14.07.1976 and both these applications

were clubbed by the land Tribunal and a common order was : 7 :

passed on 21.04.1977 declaring respondent Nos.4 and 5 as tenants of the said land and consequently granted the occupancy rights. Subsequently, the said order was challenged in writ petition No.30151/1982 and subsequently the same was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate

Authority and later the appeal came to be dismissed. In this background it is also the case of the petitioners that, subsequently, he filed an application for grant of occupancy rights in Form No.1 dated 24.06.1983 as per Annexure-D.

Thereafter, it appears he made an application before the land

Tribunal for recalling of the order passed by the land

Tribunal earlier granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and requested the land Tribunal to club the applications filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 under

Form No.7 and also the applications filed by him under Form

No.1 and to dispose of both the cases together, and consequently, he requested the land Tribunal to recall its earlier order. The land Tribunal vide order dated 26.11.2002 has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. : 8 :

4. It is evident from the records and also the orders passed by the land Tribunal and it is also not disputed that, earlier the land Tribunal has passed the order on 21.04.1977 itself, which was also subjected to challenge in WP

No.30151/82 and subsequently after transferring of the said case to the Land Reform Appellate Authority, the said appeal

was also dismissed and thereby the order of the land

Tribunal reached its finality so far as the occupancy rights granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 are concerned.

This particular order of the land Tribunal and the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was not subjected any further appeal or revision by the petitioners or anybody though the petitioners in different capacity participated before the land Tribunal in the said proceedings. After long lapse of nearly 5 years, the petitioners have approached the land Tribunal seeking for reopening of the said case and it

was declined by the land Tribunal. In this regard the Apex

Court has dealt with in a similar matter and found that, once the land Tribunal order has reached its finality, such case cannot be reopened. It is observed in the said decision : 9 :

of the Apex Court reported in 2004(10) SCC Page 665 in the case of Dattatreya and Others Vs. Mahaveer and Others.

Paragraph Nos.11 to 13 are the important paragraphs. The some and substance of the above said paragraphs are:

“Order granting the occupancy rights under

the Land Reforms Act, passed in 1979 in

favour of the respondents in presence of

appellants – Tenancy rights allowed to

become final in absence of any appeal or

revision – Application under S.5 of

Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act,

1977 (10 of 1978) filed in 1985 by

appellants for registration of occupancy

rights over the same land – During

pendency of the application, writ petition

filed in 1990 challenging the order of 1979

but the same dismissed by High Court on

ground of laches and said order of High

Court also allowed to become final –

Application under S.5 of Act 10 of 1978 : 10 :

having still remained pending, another writ

petition filed by appellants but without impleading respondents – High Court directing the Tribunal to dispose of the application on merits – Tribunal granting occupancy rights under S.12(2) of Act 10 of

1978 in favour of appellants – Held, tenancy rights having been acquired and granted in favour of respondents under occupancy under S.45 of 1961 Act, land was not available any more for registration of occupancy under S.5(2)(i) of Act 10 of

1978 – High Court having declined to interfere with Tribunal’s order of 1979 which was based on merits and the matter having reached finality, there was no occasion to reopen the matter and decide the same on merits.” : 11 :

5. In view of the above said decision, in this case also the occupancy rights granted in favour of respondent

Nos.4 and 5 in the year 1975 has reached its finality.

Therefore, there is no question of reopening the said order for the purpose considering the application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition

Act. Therefore, I do not find any strong reason to set aside the orders of the land Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition fails and accordingly, petition is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*