Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 613 (KAR)

G. M. BYRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2019-03-11

S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.N.Satyanarayana, J. Petitioners herein were claimants before the Land Tribunal, Hosakote, in proceedings bearing No.LRF(K)UP:124/1975-76, wherein they sought for grant of occupancy right in respect of land bearing Nos.51 and 54 of Upparahalli village, Hosakote Taluk, measuring to an extent of 25 guntas and 35 guntas respectively. 2. It is stated that in the aforesaid proceedings the Land Tribunal considered grant only in respect of 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.51 and in so far as Sy.No.54 is concerned, it is rejected. The said order was subject of matter challenge before this Court in WP.No.29069/2001, which came to be dismissed by order dated 30.5.2008. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred an appeal in WA.No.1283/2008. The said appeal was allowed on 18.9.2012, wherein at paragraph 9 the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: "9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Land Tribunal is modified holding that the appellants are also entitled for grant of Occupancy Rights in respect of Sy.No.54 measuring 35 guntas of land in Upparahalli village of Hosakote Taluk. Accordingly a direction is issued to the tribunal to confirm the occupancy rights in respect of 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.54 of Upparahalli village." 3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the said judgment of the Division Bench is not implemented by the Tahsildar of Hosakote Taluk. Therefore, they have come up in the present writ petition. 4. When this matter had come up on 5.3.2019, this Court directed the presence of Tahsildar of Hosakote Taluk to enquire as to why the order of the Division Bench is not given effect to by him when admittedly, he is the Secretary of the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tahsildar is present before this Court and represented through learned HCGP. He would represent before this Court that in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench, his responsibility is to place the judgment of the Division Bench before the Tribunal to modify its earlier order in granting 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.51 to include grant of 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.54 also. 5. He would represent before this Court that in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench, his responsibility is to place the judgment of the Division Bench before the Tribunal to modify its earlier order in granting 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.51 to include grant of 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.54 also. 5. However, the said submission of Tahsildar is misplaced in as much as the Division Bench in its judgment has clearly clarified that the appeal filed by the petitioners is allowed in accepting their claim for 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.54 also, which is an executive work required to be attended to by the Secretary of the Land Tribunal, namely Tahsildar. Therefore, there is no need for him to wait for reconsideration of the matter by the Tribunal thereafter, to get approval from it for the purpose of issuance of Form No.10 to an extent of 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.54 to the petitioners. In fact, judgment of the Division Bench dated 18.9.2012 itself is modification of the earlier order of the Tribunal in considering the prayer of the petitioners not only for Sy.No.51 but also for Sy.No.54. When once that is decided, what requires is only formality of issuing Form No.10, which shall be done by the Tahsildar, who is the Secretary of Land Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Sri.Ramesh K, the Tahsildar of Hosakote Taluk, who is present before the Court is instructed by this Court to ensure that within one week from the date of payment of premium amount by the petitioners he shall issue Form No.10 to the petitioners in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.1283/2008, disposed of on 18.9.2012.