Sri Srinivasa Bhat (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Sri A. Sarvothama Kini (D) By Lrs. & Ors

2. On March 29, 1994, the appellants were conferred occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in respect of Survey No. 108/17 (delineated as R.S. No. 108/17 C) admeasuring 27 cents situate at Shivalli village, Udupi Taluk, Karnataka. The controversy relates to the aforesaid land to the extent of 7 cents. The present respondent nos. 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as `writ petitioners') filed a writ petition before Karnataka High Court on January 4, 1999 challenging the order of Land Tribunal dated March 29, 1994. The writ petitioners set up the case that the extent of property admeasuring 7 cents being the portion of Survey No. 108/17 originally belonged to one Sri Krishna Kini who transferred the said land to Sri Rangannaiah (father of 5th writ petitioner) in 1949 and the purchaser came into possession. Sri Rangannaiah mainly used the said land for non-residential purposes as the property is situate in the heart of Udupi city in a prime business locality and no agricultural operations were ever carried out in the said land by Sri Rangannaiah. After the death of Sri Rangannaiah, the said land came to the share of 5th writ petitioner who transferred it to writ petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and they came in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. It was averred that in the beginning of 1998, Smt. Krishnaveniamma (Appellant No. 2 herein) tried to interfere with their possession and hence a suit (O.S. No. 74/1998) was filed by them in the Court of IInd Additional Civil 2 Judge (Jr. Division), Udupi wherein it transpired that the present appellants were asserting their rights in the said land on the basis of occupancy rights conferred upon them by the Land Tribunal. The writ petitioner nos. 1 to 4 then made enquiries from the Land Tribunal, got the copy of the order dated March 29, 1994 and approached the High Court.

4. The Single Judge, after hearing the parties and on consideration of the material placed on record, held that the writ petitioners were not able to show that they have any interest in the land in respect of which occupancy rights have been conferred in favour of the present appellants. The Single Judge also observed that the writ petitioners did not disclose the complete facts about the suit and approached the court in challenging the order dated March 29, 1994 belatedly and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition by his order dated June 1, 2001.

5. As noticed above, the Division Bench in writ appeal interfered with the order of the Single Judge giving rise to this appeal by special leave.

8. There is one more illegality in the order of the Division Bench. Although, the writ petitioner nos. 1 to 4 claimed their right to the extent of 7 cents only in Survey No. 108/17 but the Division Bench set aside the entire order of the Land Tribunal dated March 29, 1994 that pertained to 27 cents of land. Admittedly, the writ petitioners did not claim any right or interest beyond 7 cents.

9. The result is, that appeal is allowed and impugned order dated November 21, 2001 passed by the Division Bench in writ appeal No. 3473 of 2001 is set aside. No order as to costs.