1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

KALABURAGI BENCH

ON THE 15 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

WRIT PETITION No.14549/2007 (LR)

BETWEEN:

Sanganagouda S/o Sanganagouda Patil Since deceased by his L.Rs, Basavanagouda Sanganagouda Patil Since deceased by his L.R.s

1A. Smt. Basavva W/o Basavanagouda Patil Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture & Household work,

1B. Smt. Chandrakala D/o Basavanagouda Patil Aged about: 25 years, Occ: House hold work & Agriculture,

1C. Smt. Munjula D/o Basavanagouda Patil Aged about: 23 years, Occ: Agriculture & Household work,

1D. Sri Ramanagouda S/o Basavanagouda Patil Aged about: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture,

1E. Sri Umesh S/o Basavanagouda Patil 2

Aged about: 21 years, Occ: Agriculture,

1F. Smt. Nagarathna @ Navarathma D/o Basavanagouda Patil, Aged about: 13 years.

1G. Sri Nandesh S/o Basavanagouda Patil Aged about: 11 years,

Since the petitioners No.1F and 1G are minors They are represented by their natural mother Petitioner No. 1A Smt. Basavva W/o Basavanagouda Patil, Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture & House hold work.

All residents of Basavana Bagewadi, Tq. Basavana Bagewadi, Dist. . ... Petitioners

(By Sri Sanganabasava B. Patil, Advocate)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary to Revenue Department, M.S. Building, Vidhana Veedhi, -1.

2. The Land Tribunal by its Chairman, the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur, Tq & Dist: Bijapur.

3. Sri Kenchanagouda S/o Madhav Rao Patil, 3

Aged 70 years, Occ: Nil, R/o , Tq. Basavana Bagewadi, Dist: Bijapur.

4. Sri Basappa S/o Budhappa Myageri, Aged about: 60 years, Occ: Private Service in First Grade Revenue Inspector Office (FGRI Office), Basavana Bagewadi.

5. Sri Vishnu S/o Shankar Jadhav Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Private Service in First Grade Revenue Inspector Office (FGRI Office), Basavana Bagewadi.

6. Sri Mashyakasha S/o Lalsab Hokrani Since deceased by his L.R.

6A. Smt. Kutubi W/o Mashyakshab Hokrani, Aged about: 55 years, Occ: House hold work & Private, Service in First Grade Revenue Inspector Office (FGRI Office) Basavana Bagewadi.

7. Sri Davalsab S/o Ladlesab Korabu, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Private Service in First Grade Revenue Inspector Office (FGRI Office), Basavana Bagewadi. 4

8. Sri Satyappa S/o Rayagondappa Malagar, Aged about 52 years Occ: Private Service in First Grade Revenue Inspector Office (FGRI Office), Basavana Bagewadi.

All residents of Basavana Bagewadi, Tq: Basavana Bagewadi, Dist: Bijapur. ... Respondents (By Sri Syed Habib, HCGP for R1 & R2, Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, Advocate for R4 to R8, V/o dated 13.02.2014 petition stands abated against R3, Sri Umesh V. Mamadapur, Advocate/Caveator for R4 to R8)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of , praying to quash the impugned order dated 25.04.2007 bearing No.TNC:SR:19:370 produced as Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.2, etc.

This petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The case of the petitioners is that their grand father filed

Form No.11 on 31.12.1974 with regard to the extent of lands held by him. One Kenchanagouda being the wife’s brother of Sangana

Gouda filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights. The

Tribunal held that there is an excess of 21 acres 4 guntas. Against 5

the impugned order the deceased Sangana Gouda filed

W.P.No.18111/1982. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to club Form No.7 as well as Form No.11 and pass appropriate orders. After remand, once again the Tribunal committed the same mistake and passed an order as it has done earlier. The son of the deceased Sangana

Gouda filed W.P.No.232/1993 questioning the same. Once again the Hon’ble High Court directed the Tribunal to consider Form

No.7 and Form No.11 and issued directions to consider as to who are the legal representatives of the declarant. Notwithstanding the same, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, the present petition by the legal representatives of Sangana Gouda.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even when there was a specific direction to club Form No.7 and Form No.11, the same has not been done. The Tribunal has once again relied upon the previous orders of the Tribunal and rejected the Form

No.7 filed by Kenchanagouda. It directed that the petitioners are 6

holding excess land to an extent of 21 acres 4 guntas. That the same is erroneous.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to

8 defends the impugned order. He contends that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for interference. That

Sangana Gouda himself has stated that there is excess land. Hence, no interference is called for.

4. Heard learned counsels and examined the records.

5. On two previous occasions the Hon’ble High Court directed the Tribunal to club Form No.7 and Form No.11 and thereafter to consider the matter on merits in accordance with law. The same would mean that the parties should be entitled to lead their evidence, to consider the records and thereafter pass appropriate orders. In the instance case, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the earlier orders of the Tribunal. The same is incorrect. The bulk of the discussion is with regard to the entitlement of the tenant who has filed Form No.7. There was a specific direction to consider 7

Form Nos.7 and 11. Apparently, the impugned order does not disclose the consideration of the same by the Land Tribunal.

Inspite of issuing two earlier directions, the same error has been committed. Legal rights of the parties have been affected. Under these circumstances, it is only just and necessary that there should be an appropriate determination with regard to the Form No.7 and as well as Form No.11.

6. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order dated 25.04.2007 passed by respondent No.2 in

No.TNC:SR:19:370 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to consider the Form No.7 as well as the Form No.11 filed by

Kenchanagouda and the grand father of the petitioners. The same shall be done after recording appropriate evidence and based on the material and evidence on record.

Sd/- JUDGE swk