NAGAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER being aggrieved by the order of the land Tribunal, Shimoga rejecting her application for grant of occupancy rights in Sy. No. 330 measuring 10. 37 acres on the ground that it is not a tenanted land, is before this Court challenged the said order.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, her husband late R. Maharaj was the tenant of the land in Sy. No. 104 (renumbered as Sy. No. 330) of Uragadur village, Shimoga measuring about 10. 37 acres which is inclusive of 6 guntas of kharab. Her husband was cultivating the land as a tenant from the year 1964 and was also paying the gutta to the landlord. Evidencing this fact, pahanis for the year 1966-67, 1967-68 and the RTC for the years 1969-79 to 1972-73, 1974-75 to 1977-78 is produced. The grievance of the petitioner is, despite the same, the pahani was changed in the name of manjunatha Rao and Subba Rao illegally without notice to the petitioner although the petitioner had been cultivating the land as a tenant from the year 1964 and thereafter on the death of her husband, by herself. Even for the years 1989-90 to 2001-02, the pahanis stand in the name of the petitioner for having cultivated the land and fro having paid the gutta of 5 palls of paddy per acre and the receipts in this regard is also produced. The Land Tribunal having held that the 10. 37 acres of land in Sy. No. 330 is a tenanted land and vested with the government, originally had granted occupancy rights on 4. 5. 1982 - Annexure-G holding that the petitioner has been cultivating the land as tenant as on and prior to 1. 3. 1974. Against the said order, the 4th respondent and others filed WP. 20000/1982 and sought for an injunction. While the application for injunction has been rejected on 14. 2. 1983, however, writ petition came to be allowed on technical ground and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal, Shimoga. The Land Tribunal after further enquiry, passed an order on 30. 1. 1989 annexure-H in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the said order of the Tribunal was challenged again by the 4th respondent and others before the Appellate Authority in LRA 37/1989. On the abolition of the Appellate authority, Civil Petition was filed which was later converted in WP 25179/ 1993. The said writ petition was allowed on 15. 2. 1999 - Annexure-J and once again, the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal. Further, there was also a direction to the parties to maintain statusquo. After remand, although no evidence was let in on behalf of the respondent, without considering the entire material produced and also without considering the sale deed executed by the land lord - Sharaf Krishnamurthy on 20. 5. 1969 which depicts that the petitioner's husband had purchased the said land in question which is tenanted and had also been cultivated by him, the Land Tribunal has passed by the impugned order.

(3.) FURTHER according to the petitioner, Manjunatha Rao and Subba rao had filed a partition suit against their mother in respect of this property also impleading the husband of this petitioner who is arrayed as the 7th defendant. The Civil Court after trial, held that Sharaf Krishnamurthy the elder brother of Manjunatha Rao and Subba Rao had sold the property in favour of Maharaj the husband of the petitioner which is invalid as he has not taken the consent of the co-parceners and that Sharaf krishnamurthy was the Manager of the Joint Family. According to the petitioner, in FDP 10/1979 filed by Manjunatha Rao and others, the petitioner and her children have filed an application for stay and by order dated 29. 6. 1996 there is a stay of further proceedings. However, after remand by this Court, the Land Tribunal has passed the impugned order. Hence, this petition.