Karnataka High Court
Sri Subbanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.586/2022(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SUBBANNA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1(a) SMT. TULASAMMA Y
W/O LATE SUBBANNA M
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
1(b) SMT. KOMALA S
D/O LATE SUBBANNA M
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
1(c) SMT. SAVITHA S
D/O LATE SUBBANNA M
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
1(d) SMT. ROJA S
D/O LATE SUBBANNA M
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
1(e) SMT. SHWETHA S
D/O LATE SUBBANNA M
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
1(f) SRI. MADAN S
S/O SUBBANNA M
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
2
APPELLANT NO. 1TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.10, 12th MAIN
1st CROSS, HONGASANDRA
BEGUR MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 068. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI H.R. NARAYANA RAO, ADV., FOR
SRI. RAJESWARA P.N, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ANEKAL TALUK, K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560.
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT - 560 099.
5. SRI. VENKATASWAMY
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT S. BINGIPURA
JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK - 560 099
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
6. SRI NARAYANAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT S. BINGIPURA
3
JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK - 560 099
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. NARAYANA, ADV., FOR C/R-6;
SRI H.P. LEELADHAR, ADV., FOR R-5;
SRI J. SATHISH KUMAR, A.G.A. FOR R-1 TO R-4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2022 IN WP No-36874/2017 (KLR-
RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.06.1979 IN CASE No.LRF-
ACT/3355/1975-76 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
(ANNEXURE-N) CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 28.08.2009 IN REVISION PETITION No-
6/2007-08 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No-2 (ANNEXURE-L)
AND RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2005 IN
No.R.R.T.C(D) CR.1840/2002-03 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT No-4 (ANNEXURE-H) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful
petitioners challenging the order dated 14.06.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.36874/2017.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
also perused the material available on record.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated
are, the appellant claims to be the absolute owner in
possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.
No.37/1 measuring 30 guntas situated at S.Bingipura
village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, and the same was
acquired by his father late Sri Muthappa under a
registered sale deed dated 20.10.1965 executed by one
Sri Chikkannaiah. Sri Chikkannaiah was a tenant of the
land in question under Atulla Sha Darga represented by
its Manager and after the Mysore Inams Abolition Act,
1954, came into force, Sri Chikkannaiah had filed an
application on 27.07.1959 claiming occupancy rights in
respect of the land in question and considering his
application, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams
Abolition had passed an order registering him as a tenant
in respect of one acre of land in Sy. No.37/1. Thereafter,
the appellant's father has purchased the land measuring
30 guntas in the aforesaid survey number from
Chikkannaiah.
4. When the matter stood thus, one Sri Shamanna
had filed Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961, claiming occupancy rights of the aforesaid
land and considering his application, the Land Tribunal
vide its order dated 22.06.1979 had granted occupancy
rights of the land in question along with another item of
land in favour of Shamanna and his brother
Venkataswamy. The said order has been questioned by
the appellants before this Court in W.P.No.36874/2017.
5. The learned Single Judge after considering the
fact that the writ petition has been filed after an
inordinate delay of 38 years, has declined to entertain
the writ petition and accordingly, dismissed the same.
Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that
they were not parties to the order passed by the Land
Tribunal in the year 1979. He submits that the vendor of
the land in question was earlier registered as a tenant
under the Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954, and
therefore, the Land Tribunal was not justified in granting
occupancy rights of the said land under the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961.
7. Learned Counsels for the respondents have
argued in support of the order impugned passed by the
learned Single Judge.
8. The material on record would go to show that
there were several proceedings before the revenue
authorities with regard to the entries in respect of the
land in question and the parties have been litigating the
same for more than 20 years. It appears that the
appellant herein had also filed a suit in O.S.No.315/2004
in respect of the very same property and the said suit
was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to prosecute
before the proper forum. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the appellants herein had no notice of the order passed
by the Land Tribunal in the year 1979.
9. The writ petition is filed only in the year 2017
challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal on
22.06.1979. The learned Single Judge having found that
the writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay
of 38 years, has rightly declined to entertain the same.
10. Having regard to the material available on
record, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the
said order which is impugned in this writ appeal.
Therefore, we find no good grounds to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly,
the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
