Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri B Hanumanthappa, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Land Tribunal, Shikaripura, and the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.98/2017 (Revenue). The petitioner claimed to be a tenant and occupant of land bearing Sy.No.146/6 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas situated in Mallenahalli Village, Talagunda Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District, asserting that the land was in his possession and cultivation since the time of his father. The father had allegedly omitted to file an application for grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Land Tribunal ordered eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, which was confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued that he had been in continuous possession and cultivation, but the courts below found that he failed to prove payment of rent. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents, held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding non-payment of rent could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The court noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any perversity or error of law in the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Land Reforms - Tenancy - Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent - Sections 77, 44, 48 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the eviction order passed by the Land Tribunal and confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on the ground of non-payment of rent. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding non-payment of rent and the petitioner's failure to prove payment cannot be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal erred in ordering eviction of the petitioner-tenant for non-payment of rent despite the petitioner's claim of continuous possession and cultivation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights
- Eviction for non-payment of rent
- Karnataka Land Reforms Act
- 1961
- Section 77
- Jurisdiction of Land Tribunal
- Appellate Tribunal's power to confirm eviction
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (07) 52
Writ Petition No.26098/2018 (LR SEC-77)
Sri. Girish.M.K (for petitioner), Smt. Vaheeda, HCGP (for respondents)
The Authorized Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Land Tribunal, Shikaripura; The Thasildar, Shikaripura Taluk; Sri Krishnappa Naika
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of Land Tribunal and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ordering eviction of tenant.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Land Tribunal, Shikaripura, and the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.98/2017 (Revenue).
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the eviction order passed by the Land Tribunal and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground of non-payment of rent.
Previous Decisions
The Land Tribunal ordered eviction on 05.10.2016; the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order on 22.02.2018 in Appeal No.98/2017.
Issues
Whether the Land Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal erred in ordering eviction of the petitioner-tenant for non-payment of rent despite the petitioner's claim of continuous possession and cultivation.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was a tenant and occupant of the land since the time of his father and that the land was in his possession and cultivation.
The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to pay rent and that the concurrent findings of fact could not be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact regarding non-payment of rent by a tenant cannot be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution unless there is perversity or error of law.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents.
Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal rendered in (Revenue) Appeal No.98/2017 dated 22.02.2018 whereby, the Appellate Tribunal has been pleased to confirm the order of the Authorized Officer and consequently was pleased to dismiss the appeal.
The facts in brief are that, the petitioner is the tenant/occupant of the land comprised in Sy.No.146/6 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas and situated in Mallenahalli Village, Talagunda Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District.
Procedural History
The Land Tribunal passed an eviction order on 05.10.2016. The petitioner appealed to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on 22.02.2018. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961: Section 77
