Sri Y V Keshavamurthy vs Sri Rajanna
2022 Latest Caselaw 3426 Kant

                        -1-



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                      BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

     WRIT PETITION NO.51432 OF 2017 (LR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.    SRI Y V KESHAVAMURTHY
      S/O LATE VENKATARAJU
      AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

2.    SRI. THIMMAIAH
      S/O LATE VENKATARAJU
      AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

      SL. NOS.1 & 2 ABOVE ARE R/AT
      NO. 11, 2ND CROSS, MODEL COLONY
      CORPORATION WARD OFFICE ROAD
      YESHWANTHPURA, BENGLURU 560 022

3.    SMT. V NAGARATHNAMMA
      W/O. SURYANARAYANA
      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
      R/AT NO. 40/10
      BEHIND LOKESH TENT
      LINGARAJAPUR
      BENGALURU 560 084

4.    SMT. KALAVATHI V
      W/O. BOJARAJU
      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
      R/AT NO.602
      RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD
      YESHWANTHPUR
      BENGALURU 560 022
                          -2-



5.    SMT. LAKSHMI
      W/O. NAGARAJU
      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
      R/AT NO. 602
      RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD
      AMBEDKAR NAGAR
      BENGALURU 560 022

6.    SMT. PARVATHI
      W/O. BABU
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      R/AT NO.90, VENKATARAMANA
      TEMPLE STREET, CHIKKA ADUGODI
      TAVAREKERE POST, BENGALURU 560 029

7.    SMT. V SARASWATHI
      W/O. GANESHMURTHY
      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
      R/AT NO. 11, 2ND CROSS
      MODEL COLONY
      YESHWANTHPURA
      BENGALURU 560 022

8.    SMT. V PADMAVATHI
      W/O. SHIVANNA
      AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
      R/AT NO. 22
      PATIK MANSION
      ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD
      YESHWANTHPURA
      BENGALURU 560 022

9.    SRI. V GIRIRAJ
      S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

10.   SRI. V ANIL KUMAR
      S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
      AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
                           -3-



       SL. NOS.9 AND 10 ARE
       R/AT NO. 11, 2ND CROSS
       MODEL COLONY
       CORPORATION WARD OFFICE ROAD
       YESHWANTHPURA
       BENGALURU 560 022                    ... PETITIONERS

 (BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SRI RAJANNA
       S/O. JANGAMAIAH
       MAJOR IN AGE
       R/AT NIMBEKAYIPURA
       BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
       BENGALURU EAST TALUK
       BENGALURU 571 422

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
       BENGALURU 560 001            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS A.R., AGA FOR R-2;
    SRI. S. SRIKANTA, ADV. FOR R-1)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR    THE   ENTIRE   RECORDS   ON    THE   FILE   OF   THE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.848/2005
AND      ALSO    FROM     THE        R-2    HEREIN      LRF
NO.(83)/BNA/45/2002-2003.


       THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                                   -4-



                             ORDER

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short)

in Appeal No.848/2005 dated 13.02.2017, the instant writ

petition is filed.

2. Petitioners claim to be the owner of property

measuring 10 guntas in Survey No.53/1B8 of Jarakebande

Kaval village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The

submission of the petitioners is that their predecessor in

title had entered into an agreement of sale of the said

property with them and as he did not come forward to

execute the sale deed, they were constrained to file an

original suit which was decreed in their favour. That the

petitioners filed an execution petition to have the same

executed and at that time, they realized that respondent

no.1 had purchased the said property and that respondent

no.2 had initiated Section 79A and 79B proceedings under

the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Act' for short) and had passed an order forfeiting

the said land to the Government. Hence, they preferred an

appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal against the

order of forfeiture. The same has been dismissed as not

maintainable by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the

instant writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that

respondent no.1 also had challenged the order of

respondent no.2 wherein the land purchased by him was

forfeited by the State under the provisions of Section 79A

and 79B of the Act by way of appeal No.491/2005. The

Tribunal allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter

back to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 heard the

matter afresh and passed another order on 19.08.2009

forfeiting the land to the Government. Aggrieved by the

same, respondent no.1 preferred Appeal No.993/2011

before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the said

appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent no.2

forfeiting the land to the Government.

4. The proceedings before respondent no.2 was initiated

against the land purchased by respondent no.1 herein.

Aggrieved by the order of respondent no.2 in the said

proceedings, respondent no.1 has approached the Tribunal

and his appeal has been allowed. The appeal preferred by

the petitioners herein has been dismissed on the ground

that they have no locus standi. I do not find any error in

the impugned order. If the petitioners have got any right

over the land in question, they are always at liberty to

safeguard their rights by initiating appropriate proceedings

before the Civil Court or other forum, as the case may be.

It does not give them a right to challenge an order passed

by respondent no.2 as against respondent no.1 herein.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition

stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

hkh.