CHANNABASAPPA (DEAD) BY LR & ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 148 · Decided: 17-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013) 10 S.C.R. 148 
CHANNABASAPPA (DEAD) BY LR & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8289 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Kamataka Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1974 - Form 
C No. 7 - Application under - Respondent No.2 claiming to 
have sent application in Form No. 7 by post to Special 
Tehsildar, Land Reforms - Pursuant to direction of High Court 
enquiry uls.48-A conducted by Land Tribunal after taking on 
record, the Xerox copy of the application produced by 
o respondent No.2 - Tribunal held that no application under 
Form No. 7 was on record - In Writ Petition, Single Judge of 
High Court remanded the matter to Land Tribunal for finding 
out whether respondent made application under Form No. 7 
and whether the same was on record - Order of Single Judge 
E upheld in review as well as Writ- Appeal - Held: The order of 
the Single Judge in remanding ttie matter to the Tribunal 
again, rendered the order passed by the Tribunal ineffective 
for no reason - It was not open to Single Judge to remand 
the matter to Land Tribunal. 
F 
The 2nd respondent (since deceased) filed an 
application before Special Tehsildar, Land Reforms, 
contending that he had sent an application on 23.6.1975 
in Form No.7 for registering him as an occupant of the 
lands belonging to the appellants. The Special Tehsildar 
G replied that there was no record having received such 
application. Respondent No.2 filed writ petition. High 
Coµrt remitted the matter to Land Tribunal for enquiry u/ 
s. 48-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974. Land 
H 
Tribunal accepted the xerox. copy of the application in 
148 
· CHANNABASAPPA (DEAD) BY LR v. STATE OF 
149 
KARNATAKA 
Form No.7 produced by respondent No.2 for the enquiry. 
A 
It. rejected the application holding that the lands were in 
self-cultivation of the appellants and 2nd respondent was 
not their tenant. Respondent No.2 challenged the order 
of Land Tribunal. Single Judge of High Court remitted the 
matter to the Tribunal to find .out whether application 
B 
under Form No.7 existed on records and whether the 2nd 
respondent had filed the application in Form No.7. 
Review Petition as well as Writ Appeal against the order 
of Single Judge were dismissed. Hence the present 
appeal. 
C 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The Land Tribunal admitted Form No.7 
produced by the 2nd respondent in view of the High 
Court's direction dated 5th August, 1991 and on enquiry 
D 
made under Section 48-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 
1974 gave definite finding that the 2nd respondent was 
not in occupation or cultivation of the suit land as a 
tenant as on 1st March, 1974 or prior thereto. In view of 
such finding of the Tribunal, it was not open for the Single 
E 
Judge to remand the matter again to the Tribunal to 
enquire whether Form No.7 was on record or Form No.7 
was produced by the 2nd respondent which in fact 
rendered the order dated 2nd June,, 1997 passed by the 
Tribunal ineffective for no reason. The Division Bencti of 
F 
the High Court also failed to notice the above-said fact 
and thereby erred in affirming the order passed by the 
Single Judge. [Paras 12 and 13] [153-A-B; 154-D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
8289 of 2013. 
G 
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.06.2006 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 3836 of 2005 (LR). 
Rajesh Mahale, Krutin R. Joshi for the Appellants. 
H 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Sanjay R. Hegde, Kirit S. Javali, Azeem, Ankolekar 
Gurudatta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave 
8 granted. 
1. Th.is appeal has been preferred by the appellant~ 
against the judgment and order dated 2nd June, 2006 passed 
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at 
Bangalore in W.A. No.3836/2005(LR). By the impugned 
C judgment the Division Bench dismissed the appeal preferred 
by the appellants herein and affirmed the order passed by the 
learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge 
directed the Land Tribunal to verify the aspect of filing of Form 
No. 7 by the tenant. 
D 
2·. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: 
The appellants claim to be the owners of lands Tn Sy. Nos. 
33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 53 situated in village Halligeri, 
Dharward Taluk, Karnataka, having purchased the same in the 
E year 1956. According to the appellants, the lands w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.