Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma, filed a writ appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2024 in W.P. No.67352/2011, which had upheld the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22.11.2004 and the Deputy Commissioner dated 17.03.2011. The dispute concerned land alleged to be government property. The appellant claimed ownership and possession, but the authorities found that the land belonged to the government and that the appellant was an encroacher. The Assistant Commissioner ordered eviction, which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner on appeal. The appellant then challenged these orders before the High Court in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. In the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench considered whether the appellant had established any right over the land. The court noted that the appellant failed to produce any title deeds, revenue records, or other evidence to support her claim. The concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were based on an assessment of the evidence, and the Single Judge had correctly declined to interfere. The Division Bench held that there was no perversity or error of law warranting interference. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the eviction orders.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Encroachment on Government Land - Burden of Proof - The appellant claimed ownership of land but failed to produce any documentary evidence of title or lawful possession. The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner concurrently found the land to be government property and ordered eviction. The Single Judge upheld these orders. The Division Bench held that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof and the concurrent findings were based on evidence. (Paras 1-5)
B) Writ Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The court reiterated that in a writ appeal, concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities and the Single Judge should not be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. No such perversity was shown. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had established title or lawful possession over the disputed land to challenge the eviction orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22.11.2004, Deputy Commissioner dated 17.03.2011, and the Single Judge dated 23.01.2024 are upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on claimant to establish title
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with lightly
- Jurisdiction under Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964 for eviction of encroachers
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 94
WA No.100101 of 2024 (KLR-RES)
Krishna S. Dixit, Vijaykumar A. Patil
Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani (for appellant), Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath (HCGP for R1 & R2)
The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri; The Assistant Commissioner, Haveri Sub Division; Shivajappa S/o Pampanna Bhosle; Chandrappa S/o Pampanna Bhosle; Sahadevappa S/o Shidlingappa Totad; Ramappa S/o Shidlingappa Totad; Hanumantappa S/o Mahadevappa Totad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Intra-court appeal against Single Judge order dismissing writ petition challenging eviction orders passed by revenue authorities.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the Single Judge's order dated 23.01.2024 and the orders of Assistant Commissioner dated 22.11.2004 and Deputy Commissioner dated 17.03.2011.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed ownership and possession of land but was ordered to be evicted by revenue authorities on the ground that the land was government property.
Previous Decisions
Assistant Commissioner ordered eviction on 22.11.2004; Deputy Commissioner confirmed on 17.03.2011; Single Judge upheld these orders on 23.01.2024.
Issues
Whether the appellant had established title or lawful possession over the disputed land.
Whether the concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were perverse or based on no evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that she was in possession and had title to the land.
Respondents contended that the land was government property and the appellant failed to produce any evidence of title.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish title or lawful possession over the disputed land. The concurrent findings of fact by the revenue authorities and the Single Judge were based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference was warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
This intra-court appeal seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 23.01.2024 whereby private respondents’ W.P. No.67352/2011 (KLR-RES) having been favoured, the orders of Assistant Commissioner dated 22.11.2004 and Deputy Commissioner dated 17.03.2011 came to be upheld.
The appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish her title or lawful possession over the disputed land.
Procedural History
Assistant Commissioner passed eviction order on 22.11.2004. Appellant appealed to Deputy Commissioner, who confirmed the order on 17.03.2011. Appellant filed W.P. No.67352/2011, which was dismissed by Single Judge on 23.01.2024. Appellant then filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964:
