(Prayer: This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dtd.3.10.2016, passed by the land Tribunal, Udupi, produced alongside the writ Petition and marked as Annex-J, resultantly rejecting the 3rd Respondent's Claim over Sy.No.34/1, 34/8, 34/12, 34/19 and 161/1 of Phalimar Village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District.)

CAV Order

1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Land Tribunal in case No.LRY:1-446-TRI-4157/1976-77 vide Annexure-J.

2. The case of the petitioners is that, the lands in Sy.Nos.34/1, 34/8, 34/12, 34/19 and 161/1 of Phalimar village, Udupi Taluk were allotted to the share of late Smt.Rajeevi Heggadathi vide award dated 28.06.1996 in F.D.P. No.1/72 of O.S.No.142/54 filed by one late Rathnavathi Heggadthi (elder sister of Rajeevi Heggadathi). Later, on 20.12.1974, late Shivappa Shetty, Seetha Shedthy and Amba Shedthy i.e., respondent No.3 had filed a common application in Form-7 under Section 48A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short "KLR Act") claiming occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.34/8 measuring 48 cents, eastern portion of Sy.No.34/13 measuring 3 acres 63 cents, western portion of Sy.No.34/13 measuring 50 cents, Sy.No.34/1 measuring 2 acres 10 cents and Sy.No.161/1 measuring 3 acres of Phalimar Village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District (for brevity 'subject lands') along with the above mentioned survey numbers.

3. Further case of the petitioners is that the above named applicants had claimed occupancy right in respect of subject lands as well as other lands of Hejamadi Village which was allegedly tenanted from an individual named Vajra Kumar vide order dated 30.04.1977. That after lapse of several years, late Seetha Shedty i.e., one of the applicants made two representations i.e., on 13.05.1981 and 16.05.1983 before the Land Tribunal, urging that she and co-applicants were in joint possession of subject lands along with Smt.Rajeevi Heggadthi and she was also entitled to be granted occupancy right in respect of subject lands. The Land Tribunal, after hearing the matter for prolonged years, had passed an order dated 03.10.2016 by granting the subject lands only in favour of Amba Shedthy - respondent No.3 (as other two applicants namely Seetha Shedthy and Shivappa Shetty were no more). Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners are before this court.

4. Heard Sri H.Pavanchandra Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.2 to 4, Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned AGA for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Narayan Mayyar for S.R.Hegde Hudlamane learned counsel for respondent No.3. Petitioner No.1, respondent Nos.R4(a), (b), (c), respondent No.5(a) had remained unrepresented and service of notice to respondent No.5(b) was held sufficient.

5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the impugned order has been passed by the Land Tribunal against the dead individuals in the absence of their respective legal heirs. According to him, it is the fact that Smt.Rajeevi Heggadathi has left behind six children at the time of her demise and only two of them were brought on record. On perusal of the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, the respondents knowing fully that landlord - Rajeevi Heggadathi died leaving behind her six children, not made any application to bring them on record. He also contended that, respondent No.3 has failed to establish her tenancy on the subject land as on 01.03.1974 that she was in possession and cultivation of the subject land under Rajeevi Heggadathi i.e. the landlord. He also contended that, the Tribunal has passed a non-speaking order without conducting proper enquiry. According to him, the respondents have failed to place any relevant documents to prove that they are Moolageni tenants pursuant to moolageni registered on 25.11.1950. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(c) contended that, the subject lands are originally registered moolageni properties of Shivappa Shetty, Seetha Shedthi and Amba Shedthi in pursuance of registered Moolageni Deed dated 25.11.1950. Subsequently, they continued to be tenants in possession till 01.03.1974, as such, they filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy right. The landlord and her legal heirs despite appearing before the Land Tribunal through their counsel, have failed to contest the matter. As such, the Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry has granted occupancy right in favour of respondent No.3. Presently, the subject land has been acquired by the KIADB, Mangaluru and amount of Rs.95,69,000/- is deposited in LAC No.2/2009. Hence, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order in this writ petition only for unlawful gain. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the respective parties, so also perused the materials on record.

8. As could be gathered from records, the petitioners have not seriously denied the tenancy of Shivappa Shetty, Seetha Shedthi and Amba Shedthi - respondent No.3 in respect of subject lands under Smt. Rajeevi Heggadathi-landlord. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they were not notified and granted sufficient opportunity before the Land Tribunal. The proceedings/ order sheet in LRY.4157/76-77 reads as under:







9. On careful examination of the aforesaid proceedings of the Land Tribunal, it is succinctly clear that the petitioners being the legal representatives of late Rajeevi Heggadathi i.e. the landlord, appeared before the Land Tribunal personally and through their counsel on several occasions. However, they failed to contest the proceedings. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the legal representatives of late Rajeevi Heggadathi appeared, there was no application filed by the petitioners' counsel therein to bring her legal representatives on record. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason, after filing a memo by the learned counsel for the applicant on 15.03.2011 by furnishing the details of the legal representatives of late Rajeevi Heggadathi to issue notice to them, the Land Tribunal, having accepted the memo, issued notice to them and subsequently, some of the legal representatives personally appeared and some others appeared through their counsel. It is not the case of the petitioners that, the legal representatives who have appeared before the Land Tribunal had colluded with the tenants and failed to protect the interest of other legal representatives by not informing them about the proceedings.

10. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.3 and others had failed to establish the tenancy under late Rajeevi Heggadathi is concerned, the impugned order clearly depicts that, respondent No.3 and other two applicants were in possession of the subject land from the year 1950 by virtue of the registered Moolageni Deed dated 25.11.1950 and they were cultivating the land by paying geni/rent. They also produced the registered moolageni chit and the RTC extracts for the relevant period i.e. till 01.03.1974. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the Land Tribunal has passed a non-speaking order without verifying records. Hence, it could be gathered that the petitioners have challenged the impugned order in this writ petition in view of acquisition of land by the KIADB and for the compensation, having failed to contest the matter before the Land Tribunal, despite granting sufficient opportunity. In that view of the matter, I find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.