Lakshmamma vs Deputy Commissioner Tumkur District & Others

Satish Chandra Sharma, J

The present appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 12.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.52823/2018 (Lakshmamma v.

Deputy Commissioner and others).

The facts of the case reveal that the present appellant who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was claiming occupancy rights in

respect of 4 acres 19 guntas of land in old Sy.No.27 (New Sy.No.72) of Thogaragunte village, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. She filed

an application on 03.07.1991 seeking regularisation of her alleged unauthorized cultivation under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. An order

was passed on 21.07.1999 and the order was subjected to scrutiny before the Assistant Commissioner in RA No.23/2000-01 on the ground that the

appellant is the wife of one Siddaiah who is the owner of 24 acres of land in the very same village. The appeal preferred by the respondent No.3-

Lakshmaiah was allowed by an order dated 06.11.2004 and finally, the matter has travelled to Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) and the

KAT has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant meaning thereby she was not held to be a landless person. The learned Single Judge has

affirmed the order passed by the KAT.

This Court has carefully gone through the documents on record and also heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

Undisputedly, the husband of the appellant/petitioner was holding 24 acres of land in the same village. The aforesaid fact has not been controverted.

Learned counsel for the appellant has stated before this Court that the appellant is living separately.

In the considered opinion of this Court if the wife is living separately she does not become an independent unit unless and until there is a decree of

divorce or there is any other statutory provision of law to establish that the wife is to be treated as a separate unit.

Resultantly, as the husband of the appellant was having 24 acres of land, this Court is of the opinion that the authorities have rightly held that the

present appellant is not a landless person. This Court does not find reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is

accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2020 and I.A.No.2/2020 does not survive for consideration.