AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadl G. Ramesh
Petitioners have sought for to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk
at Annexure B and for such other orders. It transpires, the original petitioner and respondent No. 8 were brothers. Respondent No. 8 had filed
Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of property in Sy. No. 31/2A measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situate at Honnasandra village,
Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which was earlier rejected and later, in the writ petition filed, the matter was remanded and by the
impugned order, there is a grant in favour of respondent No. 8.
The grievance of the petitioners is, respondent No. 8 representing him as an individual has obtained occupancy rights, though it is a joint family
tenancy. Accordingly, he has sought for quashing the order passed by the Land Tribunal.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and the learned Government Pleader.
In a dispute between the landlord and tenant, the property in question was left out while passing the earlier order and the tenant had once again
challenged the same and there is an order of granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 8.
The apprehension of the petitioner is, though the land in Question forms part of the joint family tenancy, respondent No. 8 asserts that property
is exclusively granted in his favour by depriving the right to other family members. As such, the order is bad in law.
It is seen that, once Form No. 7 is filed by respondent No. 8 as head of the family or a member of the family and when it is the subject matter of
joint family tenancy, even if the claim is made by respondent No. 8 in his individual capacity and if tenancy rights have been granted, it would
necessarily enure to the joint family. Though it is asserted by respondent No. 8 that it is an individual tenancy, unless other family members join to
clarify the said position as to whether it is his individual tenancy or joint tenancy, respondent No. 8 asserting that it is an individual tenancy ever
which only he has got a right, cannot be accepted and it is left open to be shared among all the joint family members, in accordance with law. If
there is any dispute to share the property in question, the petitioners are at liberty to seek for partition before the Civil Court. However, if further
dispute arises, the Civil Court shall refer the matter to the Land Tribunal to clarify the aspect, wherein the petitioners and other persons could very
well participate and get a clarification in this regard.
With the above clarifications, petition is disposed of.