Order Of Land Tribunal Granting Occupancy Rights To Tenant Not Sustainable If Legal Heirs Of Deceased Owner Not Made Party: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in respect of a land in favour of the tenant, on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased owner were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings and their right to oppose was snatched away. A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda while allowing the petition filed by Dr...
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in respect of a land in favour of the tenant, on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased owner were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings and their right to oppose was snatched away.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda while allowing the petition filed by Dr K Ravindranath Shetty and others, remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal with a direction to hear the petitioners, afford them an opportunity of adducing evidence, if any and then, proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The petitioners had approached the Court challenging the order of the Land Tribunal on the ground that the tenant (Pakeera Maistry) who has been conferred occupancy rights in respect of 63 cents of land had arrayed their deceased father as party to the proceedings in spite of the fact that he had passed away in 1974 itself.
It was argued that the proceeding initiated against a dead person was essentially a nullity in the eye of law. Further, the cause title of the Land Tribunal's order indicated that Sanjeeva Shetty, petitioners' father had passed away and Subbaiah Shetty was representing Sanjeeva Shetty. The petitioners were completely unaware of the said proceedings as no notices had been served on them.
The Government pleader produced the records which indicated that the notices sent by RPAD to Subbaiah Shetty was received and a signature was also found in the said acknowledgment. The bench though observed, "The signature does not indicate as to whether it is the signature of Subbaiah Shetty. I, say so, because the signature found in the verifying affidavit in this writ petition and also in the vakalath differ completely when compared to the signatures found on the postal acknowledgment and also on the personal notice effected by the Land Tribunal."
The fact remains, the Court said, that all the legal representatives of Sanjeeva Shetty were not brought on record and the valuable right which the petitioners possessed to oppose the conferment of occupancy rights was "snatched away". It held,
"I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned order passed, in the absence of all the legal representatives of deceased Sanjeeva Shetty, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside."
The Court also rejected the reliance placed by the Respondent on the judgement of the court in the case of Anil M.Puthran & Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Puttur, Dakshina Kannda & Anr., (2006) 3 KAR LJ 136, wherein it was held that non-impleading of all the legal representatives would not nullify the order of the Land Tribunal.
The bench said,
"In that particular case, it had been stated by the tenant that he was unaware whether there are any legal representatives and in the light of the said submission, this Court had rendered the said judgment. In this case, the fact remains that the Land Tribunal was informed about the existence of legal representatives of the landlord and the Tribunal ordered notices to only one legal representative of Sanjeeva Shetty. This by itself indicates that the tenant was aware that there were legal representatives of Sanjeeva Shetty and therefore, the decision relied upon by the respondent would not benefit him in any way."
Accordingly it opined, "Be that as it may, since the legal representatives have not been afforded an opportunity to oppose the claim of the tenant, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained."
Case Title: DR. K.RAVINDRANATH SHETTY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA & others
Case No: W.P.No.21453/2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
Date of Order: May 23, 2022
Appearance: Advocate A. ANIL KUMAR SHETTY for petitioners; AGA RAMESH GOWDA, FOR R-1 & R-2; Advocate VIVEK HOLLA a/w advocate SANTHOSH.S.GOGI, for R-4 & R-5; Advocate S.RAJASHEKAR, FOR R-3(a, d, f & g), Advocate SHIVAKUMAR GOGI, FOR R-3(a TO g)