Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutions of India Praying to Quash the Order dated 13.5.2002 by R2 Arising out of the Order dated 4.12.2000 by R3 vide Ann-A and B Respectively.) 1. On a reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court, this writ petition is placed before us. In substance, the question referred is as to whether the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is inapplicable to a ‘granted land’ i.e., a land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes but in respect of which occupancy rights were subsequently granted to a tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961? In the context, it is relevant to refer to the definition of ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(1) (b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR2992; 1999(5)KarLJ279
ORDER1. The petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for a direction to the respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner to accept the conversion fine as per the rules and issue necessary conversion certificate in favour of the Karnataka Government Class 'D' Employees' House Building Cooperative Society Limited. The facts in these writ petitions are as follows.-The Karnataka Government Class 'D' Employees' House Building Co-operative Society Limited is a society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1957. The petitioners in W.P. No. 30444 of 1994 are the owners of the land measuring 122 acresin Survey Nos. 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 to 27 of Lingadeer-anahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The petitioners in W.P. No. 30445 of 1994 are the owners of the land measuring 26 acres, 3 guntas in Survey Numbers 12 (western portion) 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the above said village. The petitioner in W.P. No. 30446 of 1994 is a society i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
S.G. Doddakale Gowda, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 25-6-1976 made in No. LRM 2/74-75 end 936/74-75 by the Land Tribunal, Chintamani, rejecting his claim for registration of occupancy sight.2. In WA No. 458 of 1976 the order dated 27-8-1976 by which writ petition was rejected, has been set aside and remitted to consider the question whether the petitioner could be a 'deemed tenant'' under Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated thus:The petitioner was the owner of S. Nos. 27/2, 133/3 and 184/3 situate, at Anoor village, Chintamani Taluk. By a registered deed dated 13 1-1969, he conveyed his right, title and interest in favour of the second respondent for a consideration of Rs. 1,000. The second respondent-owner in OS No. 301 of 1974 on the file of the Munsiff, Chintamani, sought for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant53
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri M. V. Shamanna, learned Government Advocate for the revision petitioners, and Sri Mahesh Wadiar for Sri Mohan Shanthana Goudar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision has been filed against the order dt. 24-1-1998 whereby the trial Court has refused to accept the appearance and vakalathnama put up by the Additional Government Pleader, Laxmeshwar, as it did not contain the Advocates' Welfare Fund Stamp which is required by law to be affixed on the Vakalathnama. 3. The learned Government Counsel contended that the Court below acted illegally in rejecting the Vakalathnama and in directing that the case shall be proceeded ex parte. 4. I have perused Section 23 of the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983. It will be appropriate at this juncture to quote the same in extenso. 'Section 23. Vakalath to bear stamps.- (1) Every Advocate shall affix one welfare Fund stamp on every vakalath filed by him and no vakalath shall be filed befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR131
Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment and decree passed by Addl. Civil Judge, Sr.Divn. Udupi, Dakshina Kannada in R.A.No. 36/1988 arising out of judgment and decree passed by Addl. Munsiff and JMFC, in O.S.No. 225/84.2. The appellants who are the plaintiffs filed a suit for delivery of possession of suit schedule house consisting of two tenements and recovery of mesne profits. The plaintiffs contended that the suit house situated in survey No. 64/2 of Ambalpady village in Udupi Taluk along with agricultural land was granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of the father of the plaintiffs by name Raju Poojary. The said house was leased in favour of the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. During the life time, Raju Poojary executed a Will bequeathing the land and the said house in favour of the plaintiffs. Raju Poojary died on 21.7.1999. The plaintiffs issued a notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act, to seek possession of the same.3. The defendant in the written statement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1029; 1989(1)KarLJ302
ORDERHakeem, J.1. This Revision by the tenant Is directed against the concurrent findings and orders of the Courts below allowing the landlord's claim for eviction of the tenant on the ground under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. Both the Courts have on proper appreciation of the evidence on records, found that the tenant did not pay or deposit the arrears of rent within two months of the service of notice as contemplated under the law. It is however found that the tenant has paid certain arrears of rents in the Court, during the proceedings.3. Sri K.I. Bhatta, learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that the notice of demand preceding the filing of the petition was not served in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this connection, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in BASHA BAIG v. CHOODANATH. It is not disputed that the notice dated 13-3-1978, issued through registered post was personally served upon the tenant on 20-3-1978. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4786; 2004(7)KarLJ438
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. The petitioners have called in question the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Belthangady, in No. LRY/15/74-75 dated 14.1.2004 (Annexure-A) whereby the Land Tribunal rejected the application filed by the father of the petitioners seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of the land in question.2. It is the case of the petitioners that their father late Babu Poojari had taken the schedule lands on lease from the mother of the respondents No. 8 and 9 for cultivation and on the basis of the said lease, he was cultivating the lands as on 1.3.1974. After his death, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is contended that respondents No. 2 to 7 were the original owners of the schedule lands. They had mortgaged the lands in favour Smt. Anthamma the mother of respondents No. 8 and 9. Smt. Anthamma had given the schedule lands on lease in favour of Babu Poojari, the father of the petitioners. Babu Poojari filed application in Form No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR1307
Hiremath, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.75/72 before the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, for a decree for specific performance of an agreement on the part of the defendants to sell the suit property. The suit property is a shop building situated at Kirloskar Road, Belgaum City, bearing CTS.No.1766 measuring 226 sq. yards with a backyard and a right to use privy and well in an adjoining property. The 2nd defendant who is also the second respondent in this appeal has been carrying on a cold drink house under the name and style 'Imperial Cold Drink House, Belgaum.'This property originally belonged to her deceased husband Nagesh. He sold it away to defendant-1 for Rs.8,000/- on 15-7-1955. Nagesh was in financial difficulties when he was compelled to sell this property for Rs. 8,000/- as there were two mortgages of the same property and the mortgage debt was required to be discharged. Thus the mortgage money of Rs. 6,958-10 ps was left with the purchaser de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2000Kant215; ILR1999KAR3714; 1999(6)KarLJ219
Acts/Rules/Orders:Constitution of India - Articles 21, 162 and 226;Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 - Section 4(1);Karnataka Country and Town Planning Act, 1961;Karnataka Irrigation Act - Section 29Cases Referred:M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 388;Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628;M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, AIR 1980 SC 1992;Sachindanada Pandey and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1109;S.P. Gupta and Others v. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149;B.V. Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1984 Kar. 631, AIR 1985 Kant. 99JUDGEMENTS.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J.1. On a letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan dated 30-9-1996, the Government of Karnataka issued an order Annexure-R5 (in W.P. No. 30959 of 1996) dated 21-11-1996 to the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, authorising the demolition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR436; 1998(1)KarLJ402
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, dated 2-9-1992, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein, thereby, directing the Tahsildar to enter the name of the 2nd respondent along with the petitioner in the Revenue Records.2. Brief facts leading to this filing of writ petition, are as follows:--Petitioner's father was a tenant of the schedule lands and upon his application in Form 7 to the Land Tribunal, the LandTribunal has registered him as an occupant of the land in conformity with Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ('the Act' for short). Petitioner's father died on 3-10-1982, leaving behind him a Will, bequeathing the schedule lands in the name of the petitioner. After the death of his father, petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Tahsi...
Tag this Judgment!