Karnataka High Court

Sri Muniyappa Alias Sen Muniyappa vs State Of Karnataka on 21 December, 2021

Bench: Alok Aradhe, Anant Ramanath Hegde

                                 1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                             PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                               AND

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE


                   W.A. No.768 OF 2019 (LR)


BETWEEN:

  1. SRI MUNIYAPPA ALIAS SEN MUNIYAPPA
     S/O LATE RAMANNA
     BYANNANAPALYA ALIAS VAJARAHALLI
     THALAGHATTAPURA POST
     UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
     BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK- 560109
     RESPRESENTED BY HIS GPA

       VM RAJU
       S/O MUNIYAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
       R/AT BYANNANAPALYA ALIAS VAJARAHALLI,
       THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
       UTTARAHALLIHOBLI,
       BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560109

                                               ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.R.S.RAVI, SR.COUNSEL FOR
    SRI NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADV.,)

AND:

  1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
     MS BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560001

  2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
                                 2

  REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
  KANDAYA BHAVANA, KG ROAD, BENGALURU -560002

3. SRI M MUNIKRISHNAPPA
   S/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
   R/ AT THALAGHATTAPURA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
   BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
   BENGALURU- 560109

4. TV SATYANARAYANA RAO,
   SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S

  A)    T.S.NAGENDRA
        S/O.LATE T.V.SATYANARAYANA RAO

  B)    T.S.RAJALAKSHMI
        D/O LATE T.V.SATYANARAYANA RAO

  C)    SMT.T.S.TARA
        D/O.LATE T.V.SATYANARAYANA RAO

  D)    SMT.T.V.VASANTHA KUMARA
        D/O LATE T.V.SATYANARAYANA RAO

  E)    SMT.T.S.PADMAVATHI
        D/O LATE T.V.SATYANARAYANA RAO

  F)    T.S.BANUMATHI
        D/O.LATE T.V.SATYANARAYANA RAO

        ALL ARE RESIDING AT
        NO.12, KOTA "B: GALLI
        KALASIPALYAM
        BENGALURU

  5.    SRI R.V.RAMAKRISHNA
        S/O.VENKOBA RAO
        R/AT NO.17
        VENKATASWAMAPPA ROAD,
        BENGALURU
                                    3


     6.    SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
           KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
           DEVELOPMENT BOARD (METRO)
           NO.14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVANA
           NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
           BENGALURU - 560 001              ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2
    SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR
    SRI S.SARAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-3
    SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-6
    SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-5 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE RDER DATED
     27.03.2019
    NOTICE TO R-4 (A) TO R-(F) IS DISPENSED WITH.)
                                  ---

      THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16/02/2019 IN WP 14540 AND 15414/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity

of the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by learned Single Judge by

which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

In order to appreciate the appellant's grievance, few facts need

mention, which are stated infra.

2. The appellant claims to be a tenant in respect of land

measuring 18 guntas of Sy.No.5/3 situated at Thalaghattapura Village,

Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The appellant filed an

application for grant of occupancy rights in Form No.7 under the

provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1974. The land tribunal by an order

dated 23.09.1977 granted occupancy rights in favour of the appellant

in respect of land measuring 18 guntas of Sy.No.5/3. The respondent

No.3 who claims to be a purchaser of site from respondent No.4 viz.,

the owner filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.36441/1982, which was

allowed by an order dated 18.06.1985 and the order of the tribunal

dated 23.09.1977 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the

tribunal for fresh disposal of the application filed by the appellant after

holding an enquiry in terms of Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms

Rules, 1974.

3. The tribunal by an order dated 24.03.1977 rejected the

application. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in a

writ petition viz., W.P.No.14153/1997. A learned Single Judge of this

court by an order dated 08.12.2004 quashed the order dated

24.03.1977 passed by the tribunal and the matter was remitted to the

tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The application

preferred by the appellant was rejected by the tribunal by an order

dated 07.11.2008. The said order was challenged in

W.P.No.5356/2009, which was decided by an order dated 21.06.2012.

The order of the tribunal dated 07.11.2008 was quashed to the extent

of remaining area of Sy.No.5/3 excluding the area of 5 guntas, which

was sold in 1972 and the tribunal was directed to conduct an enquiry.

4. The tribunal pursuant to the aforesaid order of remand,

the tribunal by an order dated 09.03.2018 again rejected the

application filed by the appellant in form No.7. The said order was

challenged in a writ petition. The aforesaid order was challenged in a

writ petition The. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 18.02.2019

has affirmed the order passed by the land tribunal. In the aforesaid

factual background, this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant's name was entered in respect of land measuring 18 guntas

as on 01.03.1974. It is further submitted that only land measuring

8.20 guntas was sold vide three registered sale deeds and the name of

purchasers were not entered in the revenue records. Therefore, the

claim of the appellant with regard to land measuring 9.80 guntas for

grant of occupancy rights, needs to be examined. It is further

submitted that the tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge ought

to have appreciated that entire area of 18 guntas was not sold. It is

also urged that by virtue of Section 44 (1) of the Act, the lands stood

transferred in the name of State Government and therefore, sale

deeds were null and void. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance

has been placed on decisions of this court in 'BANASHANKARI

DEVASTHAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (1980) 2 KANT LJ 111,

'SHIDDAPPA KARIYAPPA GOUDA VS/ LAND TRIBUNAL,

RANEBENNUR, (1978) 1 KANT LJ83, and decision of Supreme

Court in 'GOWDARA NANAJAPPA VS. MATADA BASAIAH AND

OTHERS', AIR 2008 SC 1480'.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for respondent

submitted that the appellant has accepted the order of remand of this

court and it is not the case of the appellant that he is in personal

cultivating possession of the land which remains after the sale after

execution of three sale deeds. It is fairly submitted by learned Senior

counsel for respondent No.3 that entire area of 18 guntas was not sold

and only land measuring 10.02 guntas was sold. Therefore, the

tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have rightly negatived the

claim of the appellant. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance

has been placed on full bench decision of this court in 'BALLESHA

RAMA KHOT AND OTHERS VS. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHIKODI

AND OTHERS', AIR 1978 KAR 73.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before

proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of

the order 21.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.5356/2009:

It is seen that there is alienation of the property in Sy.No.5/3 to the extent of approx 5 guntas i.e., 85 x 35 in favour of 3rd respondent through a sale deed way back in the year 1972 itself, over which the petitioner cannot claim occupancy rights. However, the remaining extent of land is staid to be sold during 1977. It is to be ascertained by the land tribunal as to who was in possession of the remaining extent of land out of 18 guntas, excluding the land which was sold in favour of the 3rd respondent, as on 01.03.1974.

In that view of the matter, petition is allowed in part. Impugned order is quashed only to the extent of remaining area in sy.No.5/3 excluding the area of 5 guntas, which was sold in the year 1972 and, there shall be an enquiry in this regard, after due notice to the parties. All the contentions are left open to be urged. Matter is remanded back to the land tribunal for needful as above.

8. Thus, it is evident that in pursuance of the aforesaid order

of remand, the tribunal was required to examine the claim of the

appellant in respect of grant of occupancy rights in respect of

remaining land. However, the tribunal by an order dated 09.03.2018

has rejected the application on the ground that entire area was sold by

three sale deeds. It is not in dispute that three sale deeds do not cover

the entire area of 18 guntas. The learned Single Judge has also failed

to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Therefore, the

impugned order passed by learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2019 as

well as the order passed by the land tribunal dated 09.03.2018 are

hereby quashed. The tribunal after affording an opportunity of hearing

to the parties shall ascertain the extent of area of land sold under the