Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 780 (KAR)

Raghuveera Baliga v. State of Karnataka

2013-07-05

H.G.RAMESH

body2013
Judgment : 1. Petitioners in both these petition are the landlord and tenant respectively and they are before this Court against the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Belthangi on 17-5-2001-Annexure-A. In respect of properties in Sy. Nos. 53/2, 27/3 and 27/9 application is said to have been filed by the tenant claiming occupancy rights. 2. According to the petitioners-landlord, in respect of property in Sy. No.27/3 the claim of the tenant in From 7 is only for 2.06 acres but an attempt has been made to make it as 2.96 acres. Petitioner rather consented for the statements fairly to the extent of holding by the tenant. The alleged tenant is not cultivating the land and rather he is a Teacher by profession. Despite that, petitioner-landlord had consented for holding. However, the tenant contends that it is no 2.06 acres and it is 2.96 acres that is claimed. 3. Heard the Counsel representing the parties as also the Government Advocate. 4. It is the submission of the Counsel representing the respondent-tenant that the extent claimed is 2.96 acres and not 2.06 acres. Nothing has been indicated in the sketch produced as to the extent of land rather the survey report given is handwritten and not on the spot as such, the survey sketch cannot be relied upon. Accordingly, it is contended that the tenant was cultivating the land in Sy. No.27/3 to the extent of 2.96 acres. 5. A perusal of the report of the Surveyor at an undisputed point of time depicts Sy. No.27/3 to the extent of 2.06 acres. At that point of time, no dispute had been raised and on remand, the tenant is seeking for confirmation to the entire extent of 2.96 acres. 6. Counsel representing the landlord submits that another tenant who was in possession had filed Form 7-A which was rejected. The tenant is trying to take advantage of the same and claiming the entire extent of 2.96 acres. 7. On perusal of the original records made available, it is not clear from the Form filed as to the extent claimed as the paper is very worn out. Apart from that what is noticed is, the entire extent of property in Sy. No. 27/3 is to the extent of 2.96 acres including Kumki land. 7. On perusal of the original records made available, it is not clear from the Form filed as to the extent claimed as the paper is very worn out. Apart from that what is noticed is, the entire extent of property in Sy. No. 27/3 is to the extent of 2.96 acres including Kumki land. In respect of other lands also, the report given by the Surveyor is accepted and it cannot be gain said that it is 2.96 acres but rather at an undisputed point of time, When the survey report is given, the extent is 2.06 acres in respect of the holding of tenant in the said survey number. 8. It could be seen that the landlord giving consent depicts that there is no manipulation from his side to have unlawful gain. Further, by the impugned order, land has been granted to an extent of 2.60 acres (54 cents extra). Even to go by the claim of the petitioner-tenant, if it was 2.96 acres, question of Land Tribunal granting excess 56 cents as against 2.06 acres making it as 2.56 acres is nobody’s case. On verifying the survey report and other documents coupled with Form 7 filed and also the statements of the landlord admitting regarding the claim of tenant as only 2.06 acres in Sy. No. 27/3, the claim of the petitioner-tenant that he is entitled for the entire extent of 2.96 acres does not hold any water. More over, Kumki land could not have been the subject-matter of tenancy/occupancy rights. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition of the landlord (W.P. No.33731 of 2011) is allowed and the petition filed by the tenant (W.P. No. 26061 of 2011) is dismissed.