Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

constitution of india - article 226 and 227-writ petition under-parties approaching the courts with unclean hands-suppression of previous proceedings-subsequent writ petition with the same prayer-on facts,-held, it is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;w.p. is rejected. - sections 8 & 23 (as amended by act 39/2005): [chidananda ullal & h.n. nagamohan das, jj] succession, opened earlier to the amended act 39/2005 applicability of amended provisions to such cases held, the provisions of the amended act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended act 39/2005.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orderr. gururajan, j1. this case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this court for relief under article 226 of the constitution of india. this case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the courts of law. courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.2. smt. ratnabai w/o adagouda patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-land tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in sy.nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of sadalaga village, tal: chikodi, dist: belgaum, bearing no. klr/sr/364/1974-sadalaga, as.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

R. Gururajan, J

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Ordered accordingly.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '388793',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
			'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
			'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">R. Gururajan, J</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '388793',
		(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors Vs the Land Tribunal and ors - Citation 388793 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '388793',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/61958/karnataka-land-reforms-act-1961-complete-act">Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 15(5); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005',
		'appellant' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 AND 227-WRIT PETITION UNDER-PARTIES APPROACHING THE COURTS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS-SUPPRESSION OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS-SUBSEQUENT WRIT PETITION WITH THE SAME PRAYER-ON FACTS,-HELD, It is not possible to issue any direction in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance-petition dismissed with costs-registrar vigilance is directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners.;W.P. is rejected. - Sections 8 & 23 (As amended by Act 39/2005): [Chidananda Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Succession, opened earlier to the amended Act 39/2005  Applicability of amended provisions to such cases  Held,  The provisions of the amended Act 39/2005 is not applicable to cases where succession had opened earlier to amended Act 39/2005 coming into force. On facts held,  The succession having opened in the year 1969, evidently, the provisions of amendment Act, 2005 would have no application to the facts of the case. Further,  It is not in dispute that K died in the year 1969. On the demise of K in 1969, the succession is opened. As per the Hindu Succession Act in force in 1969 a coparcener is entitled for coparcenary property. In the year 1969 K  and his son deceased defendant No.4- D are the two persons who are the Coparceners of the joint family. It is not in dispute that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. On a notional partition K is entitled for half share and his son deceased. D is entitled for half share in the schedule properties. After the demise of  K in the year 1969 his half share devolve upon class-1 Heirs. Class I heirs in the instant case are deceased wife Y , three daughters by name P N Ka and the only son D  and each one of them are entitled to equal share in the half share of late K . Therefore, the amended provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of this case since the succession had already opened in the year 1969 on the demise of  K. 
HINDU LAW-- Marriage: [Chidanada Ullal & H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ] Presumption as to  - Long spell of living together  D and Y lived together from 1960 to 1969 -Y gave birth to a son during that time - Held, It is a rebuttable  presumption. Except bare denial of the marriage between D and Y,     defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption. A heavy urden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption. The relationship between D and Y was valid and their son was a legitimately born son
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT,1956[C.A.No.30/1956] -- Section 6: [As amended with effect from 9.9.2005]: [Chidananda Ullal & H.N.Nagamohan Das, JJ] Contention raised that the three daughter of D through his first wife, becomes coparceners and are entitled for equal shares -D expired oin 1969 - Held,  When succession opens earlier to the amended provisions coming into force, the amended provisions will not apply. In this case succession opened in 1969. [Decision in Sugula Bai v Gundappa Amareddy, ILR 2007 Kar 4790 is implied overruled in Sheela Devi & ors. v Lal Chand & anr. 2006 (8) SCC 581]. -  After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-23',
		'deposition' => 'Petition Rejected',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'R. Gururajan, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J</p><p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.</p><p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.</p><p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:</p><p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.</p><p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.</p><p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.</p><p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.</p><p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.</p><p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.</p><p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above</p><p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.</p><p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2006(4)KarLJ297',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Land Tribunal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '388793',
	(int) 1 => 'adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/388793/adagouda-bhabu-patil-since-deceased-lrs-vs-land-tribunal'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>R. Gururajan, J',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This case reflects the sorry state of affairs of unclean hands approaching this Court for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This case must be an eye opener to all the litigants in the matter of suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Courts of law. Courts of law are considered to be temples of justice. Temples of justice are not to be polluted under any circumstances.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Smt. Ratnabai w/o Adagouda Patil and her children are before me seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal to dispose of the application of the petitioners in respect of the petition lands in Sy.Nos. 240/1+2,241/1+2,242/1+2 of Sadalaga Village, Tal: Chikodi, Dist: Belgaum, bearing No. KLR/SR/364/1974-Sadalaga, as ordered by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 12.10.1999 passed in W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C' expeditiously.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The lands involved in this Writ Petition are Sy. Nos. 240/1+2 measuring 12 A-19Gs, out of mis a portion of 3 A-06Gs on the Northern side, Sy. No. 241/1+2 measuring 9A-01 Gs, out of this a portion of 2A-16Gs on the Northern side and Sy.No. 242/1+2 measuring 6A-20Gs, out of this a portion of 1 A-28Gs on the Northern side, all situated in Sadalaga Village, Chikodi Taluk. These three lands are adjoining each other and totally measures 28 acres. The petitioners are in possession and cultivation of a total portion of 7 acres 10 guntas situated on the northern side of these lands. The respondents 3 to 5 are the owners of the said lands. The petition lands originally belonged to one Ganesh Joshi who leased the above said entire lands in favour of the family of the petitioners and that of one Appasaheb and Annasaheb sons of Tatya Ugare Long prior to 1942. The families of the petitioners and that of Ugare have been in possession and cultivation of the respective portions of the lands out of the above said Sy.Nos. as tenants. After death Ganesh Joshi, left behind 2 sons namely respondent No. 3 and late Sakharam, the father of respondents 4 and 5. Late Adagouda Patil has taken the above mentioned 7 acres 10 guntas out of the petition lands as tenant from the land owners and he has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands. The name of Adagouda Patil was entered as 'Protected Tenant'. Dispute arose between the families of the petitioners and ultimately the case was settled in terms of a decree passed in AC. No. 1/1970. Thereafter, according to the petition averments, a Wardi was given to the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar, Chikodi and entries are updated as per the Wahiawa made by the respective parties. The 3rd respondent filed resumption application Under Section 15 of the <a>Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961</a> (for short 'the Act') seeking resumption of his half share out of the petition lands. Proceedings were held with regard to a claim Under Section 15 of the Act and ultimately the contesting respondents were successful right up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners are not party to those proceedings.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The petitioners say that late Adagouda Patil filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights of the lands measuring 7 acres 10 guntas out of the above said 3 sy.Nos. situated on the northern side of the land. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights in terms of an order dated 21.10.1981. No orders were passed with regard to these lands. Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W.P. No. 15052/1993 seeking for a direction in the matter. This Court allowed the petition. Matter was remanded. After remand, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not take up the case of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. With these facts, the petitioners are seeking a direction at the hands of this Court with regard to consideration of the application for grant of lands by the Land Tribunal in the light of an earlier order by this Court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. The contesting respondent entered appearance. A detailed statement of objection was filed. In the objection statement, the respondents reveal the true facts, to my shock and surprise. It is stated in the objection statement that in Annexure 'R1', late Adagouda Bhau Patil claimed several lands and his application was re numbered as 364. Matter was considered and thereafter the Tribunal did not grant these lands in his order. The Tribunal however granted occupancy rights with regard to other lands situated in other survey numbers. Writ Petition was filed in this Court and in Writ Petition, the petitioners did not whisper any grievance with regard to non consideration of these lands. The challenge in the earlier writ petition was only with regard to other survey numbers in terms of the schedule mentioned in the earlier W.P. No. 10330/1982. That Writ Petition was transferred to the appellate authority. Later, proceedings were converted as writ proceedings. The earlier writ petition was re numbered as W.P. No. 15052/1993, Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C', this Court remanded the matter for re-consideration. The order was not very clear with regard to remand. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition was filed. According to the respondent, in the light of no challenge to the earlier proceedigns, the petitioner cannot seek for any further direction as is being done in the case on hand, if read of all the materials together. The respondent further would say that one Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, brothers and relatives of the petitioners' father filed a Writ Petition in respect of these very lands in the light of an application filed by the contesting respondent Under Section 15 of the Act. They challenged the notice issued by the Tribunal Under Section 15(5) of the Act. That Writ Petition stood dismissed on 25.2.2004. The same was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1810/ 2004. The said appeal was dismissed. Matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also rejected the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner therein. After unsuccessful challenge, again Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, earlier writ petitioners filed one more writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004. That petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2005. Thereafter, these very petitioners filed another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12224/2004 seeking to quash an endorsement of the Tribunal and thereafter they withdrew the writ petition without liberty in terms of an order dated 8.8.2005. After disposal of the said writ petition, the present writ petition is filed on 27.9.1995. The petitioner in these petitions has suppressed all these facts and hence, the contesting respondent wants the petition to the dismissed with costs.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that Annexure 'C' is an order passed by this Court and in Annexure 'C' there is no reference to the lands in particular. He therefore says that a direction is sought for to consider Form No. 7 for disposal in the light of the order of this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Per contra, Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel after referring to the facts and the objection statement says that not only no relief could be granted in the Light of various earlier orders but also costs has to be imposed as otherwise there will be petition after petition with suppression of material facts.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. It is rather unfortunate that in these commercial days, Courts are used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants for relief under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>. This is one such solid case. Normally this Court in the light of a simple prayer of direction would consider the case of the petitioner to avoid any non-consideration resulting in denial of justice to a litigant. Taking into consideration, the leniency in such matters of direction, the petitioners have chosen to suppress several facts including the orders of this Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioners have made this very prayer in the earlier Writ Petition filed by them. That petition was withdrawn without liberty. Annexure 'C is an order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that there is no reference to these three lands in the order of the L.T. The order is silent. If the petitioner is really serious about his rights in respect of his lands, he would have certainly sought for a clarification by way of an application in the matter. He did not do so. Orders were passed in the year 1999. Thereafter, as mentioned earlier, no attempts were made by the petitioner either for seeking clarification or seeking for review/recall of the said order. On the other hand, after 5 long years i.e., in 2004, an application is made seeking for reopening of the case in case No. 364/1974. The same is followed by another request after six months. Probably, these two requests were made only for the purpose of filing of a Writ Petition. The petitioner cannot seek a direction with regard to these 3 lands in terms of Annexure 'C'. In Annexure 'C' there is absolutely no direction with regard to consideration of these 3 lands. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot seek any direction in respect of these 3 lands for the reasons to be mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. Application No. 364/1974 was filed by the petitioners' father. Several lands were claimed. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.10.1981 has chosen to grant occupancy rights only in respect of land situated in Sy. Nos. 365/1, 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370. The Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioners in terms of the findings found at para 11 of the statement of objection. This order dated 21.10.1981 rejecting the claim was challenged by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 10330/19082 (which was converted as a subsequent writ petition in W.P. No. 15052/1993). Copy of the petition is at Annexure 'R2'. There is absolutely no reference with regard to the impugned land in terms of the schedule mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10330/1982. Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, matter was sent to the Appellate Authority and thereafter, C.P was filed and proceedings were converted as Writ Petition. While disposing of W.P. No. 15052/1993, this Court could not have considered these 3 lands because these 3 lands do not form part of the prayer schedule in terms of Annexure 'R2' (W.P. No. 10330/1982). The converted Writ Petition No. 15052/1993 could not be traceable or referable to these lands. Therefore, there is no question of this Court issuing a direction or considering the claim of the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands in the light of Annexure 'R1', the order of the Tribunal, Annexure 'R2', writ petition, if read with the order passed at Annexure 'C', by this Court. The petitioner conveniently has chosen to keep silence with regard to these aspects of the matter. On the other hand, the petitioners have chosen to renew the request after 30 long years. It is further shocking to note that these 3 lands were claimed by the contesting respondent by way of proceeding Under Section 15 of the Act. Those proceedings ended in favour of the contesting respondent. Writ Petition was filed by Appasaheb Tatya Ugare and Annasaheb Tatya Ugare, relatives of the petitioner in this Court. It stood dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. It stood dismissed. S.L.P. was filed. That also stood dismissed. Thereafter, again those very petitioners filed a second Writ petition in W.P. No. 26921/2004 with suppression of material facts. I had an occasion to deal with that case and after noticing the suppression, I have dismissed the petition with certain stricture against the petitioner. That order has become final. These very petitioners filed one more Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 12224/2004. In that writ petition they did not mention about their claim in terms of Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner in respect of these 3 lands. Petition is silent. They were concerned with regard to Sec. 15 proceedings initiated by the contesting respondent. Probably, in that stage, objection statement was filed and after noticing their clever fact probably the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition by an order dated 8.8.2005 without liberty. Thereafter, immediately, within two months, the present Writ Petition is filed. In this Writ Petition, there is absolutely no reference to any of the above referred facts. In the earlier writ petition, there is no reference to earlier writ petition, Annexure 'C'. In this writ petition, there is no reference to W.P. No. 12224/2004. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that the petitioners have chosen to suppress the relevant materials which would have consequences while approaching this Court. On the facts of this case and in the given circumstances, this Court has to view the case seriously as otherwise litigants would take the Court proceedings very lightly and they would pollute the entire Court atmosphere by suppression of facts resulting in contradictory orders in the matter. The Court should not be a party for polluted games of the litigants. Hence, I deem it proper to view the case very seriously not only by way of costs but also by way of initiation of proceedings so that this case could be an eye opener to all the polluted litigants. On the facts of this case, it is not possible to issue any directory in the light of the earlier rejection and in the light of no grievance and in the Light of other materials available on record as referred to above',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Writ Petition therefore stands rejected. However, I deem it proper to direct each one of the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- within eight weeks from today to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. They must file a receipt for having deposited the costs in terms of this order. I further deem it proper to direct the office to place the entire writ papers before the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka Registrar Vigilance is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 on account of her advanced stage of 70 years in terms of this order for suppression of material facts in a Court of law.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. Ordered accordingly.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Civil;Property
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Feb-23-2006
Case Number	Writ Petition No. 22574 of 2005
Judge	R. Gururajan, J.
Reported in	2006(4)KarLJ297
Acts	Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Sections 15 and 15(5); Constitution of India - Article 226
Appellant	Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors.
Respondent	The Land Tribunal and ors.
Appellant Advocate	Ravi S. Balikai, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	Ramesh B. Aneppanavar, HCGA for R1 and R2 and ;P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3 to R5
Disposition	Petition Rejected

Adagouda Bhabu Patil Since Deceased by His Lrs and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors. - Court Judgment