Karnataka High Court
Smt. Neelamma vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION. NO.53066 OF 2019 (KLGP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. SRI. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O HONNAVALLI
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE (P/H)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
NEW DELHI - 110 007.
2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNEMTN OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
2
ARANYA BHAVAN
MALLESHWARA 18TH CROSS
BENGALURU - 560 003.
4. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION
HASSAN - 573 201.
5. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION
TUMKUR - 572 101.
6. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
GUBBI RANGE, GUBBI
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY. SRI. BOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R2-R6 (P/H)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED:06.07.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA LAND
GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT AT BENGALURU IN
NO.L.G.C (T) NO.2339/2017 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO THE
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-6 AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN LGC(G) NO.1280/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL
COURT AT BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE -H AND ETC
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Present writ petition is filed seeking quash of
the order dated 06.07.2018 passed in No. L.G.C.(T)
No.2339/2017 by the Karnataka Land Grabbing
Prohibition Special Court (hereinafter referred to as
'the Special Court'), in and by which, the Special
Court while dismissing the suit of the petitioners, has
directed the officers of the Forest Department to
initiate proceedings against the petitioners under
Section 9(1) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act').
2. The case of the petitioners is that one
Muddayya, grandfather of the 2nd petitioner and the
father-in-law of the 1st petitioner was the owner of
the land measuring 33 guntas bearing Survey
No.37/1 of Honnavalli village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur
District. That the forest land in Survey No.30
measuring an extent of 400 acres is situated adjacent
to the land of the petitioners. That the said Muddayya
had encroached upon about 1 acre 29 guntas of forest
land and was in possession of the same prior to the
year 1950 and had developed the same by growing
mango, arecanut and coconut trees thereon.
3. That upon the demise of Muddayya his son
Venkategowda, the husband and father respectively
of the petitioners, continued to cultivate the said land.
That in view of the interference by the
respondent/authorities, the petitioners had filed a suit
in O.S.No.5/11 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC,
Gubbi seeking relief of declaration that the petitioners
are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment
of the suit land having perfected their title by way of
adverse possession and for consequential and
permanent injunction. That in view of coming into
effect of the Act, the matter was transferred to the
Special Court. Upon the transfer of said suit, the
same was renumbered by the Special Court as CGT(T)
No.2339/2017.
4. That the Public Prosecutor representing the
State had raised issue of maintainability of the said
suit. Relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court
reported in GURUDWARA SAHIB vs. GRAM
PANCHAYATH, VILLAGE SIRTHALA- 2014(1)SCC
669 and DHARAMPAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.Rs VS.
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD -2018(11) SC 449)
wherein it was held that the plea of adverse
possession was not available to the plaintiff, but can
only be raised by the defendant by way of defence,
contended that the suit of the plaintiff for declaration
was not maintainable. Accepting the said contention,
the Special Court, by its order dated 06.07.2018,
dismissed the suit as not maintainable and directed
the authorities to take action as referred to above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to
the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL AND OTHERS vs.
MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS (AIR 2019 SC 3827)
wherein the Apex Court over-ruling its earlier
Judgment in Gurudwara Sahib and Dharampal
(dead), through L.Rs supra, has held that a suit for
declaration of title and for restoration of possession
on the plea of adverse possession is maintainable
under Section 65 of the Limitation Act, submits that in
view of the aforesaid position of law, the dismissal of
suit by the Special Court was illegal. Hence, sought
for allowing of the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and perused the records.
7. The Special Court without going into the
merits of the case, has dismissed the suit of the
petitioners solely relying upon the Judgments of the
Apex Court in the case of Gurudwara Sahib and
Dharampal (dead), through L.Rs supra. However,
in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL supra, a plea of
acquisition of title by adverse possession can be
claimed by the plaintiff under Article 65 of the
Limitation Act and that there is no bar under the
Limitation Act, 1963, to sue on aforesaid basis in case
of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff, the suit of
the plaintiff requires to be restored to original file.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of
considered view that the order passed by the Special
Court requires to be set aside and the matter be
remitted to the Special Court for consideration of the
plea of the petitioners in the light of the Judgment of
the Apex Court in RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL case
supra and in accordance with law.
9. With the above observation, petition is
disposed of. No opinion is expressed on the merits or
otherwise of the case of the petitioners in this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
bnv*
