Sri. Byrappa vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3477 Kant

                         1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                      BEFORE

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

        WRIT PETITION NO. 41575 OF 2017 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. BYRAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/A. SIDDAPURA VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 031

                                     ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYA KUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.S.VARADARAJAN AND SRI. SANTHOSH,
ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU-560 001

2.     THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       BENGALURU DISTRICT AND COMPETENT
       AUTHORITY
       BENGALURU EAST TALUK
       KRISHNARAJAPURAM
       BENGALURU 560 036

3.     SMT. BHYRAMMA
       W/O LATE DODDAGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
       OCC:AGRICULTURIST,
                         2


       R/A KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE,
       BIDARAHALL HOBLI,
       BENGALURU EAST TALUK 560 049.
       SINCE DEAD BY LRS

3(a) PRABHA
     D/O LATE BYRAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

3(b) VINODA
     D/O LATE BYRAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

3(c) VANKTU
     D/O LATE BYRAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

3(d) GAYATHRI
     D/O LATE BYRAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

3(e) MANJAMMA
     D/O LATE BYRAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

3(f)   NAGESH
       S/O LATE BYRAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

       ALL ARE RESIDING AT,
       KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE
       BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
       BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 049.


4.     SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
       W/O SUBBARAO
       AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
       R/A SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
       VARTHUR HOBLI,
       BENGALURU EAST TALUK 560 037.
                        3


5.   SMT. NARASAMMA
     W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
     AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
     R/A GOVINDAHALLI VILLAGE
     KUPPAM TALUK,
     CHITOOR DISTRICT,
     ANDHRA PRADESH 517 425.

6.   SRI. R. KRISHNAMURTHY
     SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LRS

6(a) SRI. MUKUNDA RAO
     S/O LATE R. KRISHNAMURTHY
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

6(b) SMT. RAMAMANI
     D/O LATE R. KRISHNAMURTHY
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

6(c) SMT. YASHODA
     D/O LATE R. KRISHNAMURTHY
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

     RESPONDENTS 6(a) TO 6(c)
     ARE RESIDING AT
     GOVINDAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KUPPAM TALUK,
     CHITOOR DISTRICT,
     ANDHRA PRADESH 517 425.
                                 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS A.R, AGA FOR R1 AND R2
 SRI. P.SRINIVASAIAH & SRI.M. THIMMARAYA SWAMY,
    ADVOCATE FOR R3 (A TO F))

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2017
PASSED IN APPEAL NO.443/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE
ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND
ETC.
                              4


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

                         ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short) in Appeal

No.443/2011 dated 21.07.2017 third respondent

therein has preferred this writ petition.

2. The case of the respondent is that his father

was a tenant and was cultivating 1 acre 34 guntas of

land in Sy.No.53 of Siddapura village, Varthur Hobli,

Bangalore East Taluk. The said land was an Inam land

attached to the village office, with the passing of

Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, the land has

vested with the Government and as contemplated in

Section 5 of the said Act, the land has already been

granted to the owner of land under whom the father of

the petitioner was a tenant and he continued to be a

tenant even after 01.03.1974 and the land after death

of his father has been cultivated by the petitioner and

till today he is in possession of the same. However, due

to illiteracy and ignorance, his father did not file

application for grant of occupancy rights and after

taking proper advice, the petitioner filed form No.7(a)

and prayed for grant of occupancy rights.

3. Considering the request of the petitioner,

respondent No.2 granted land in favour of petitioner.

The same was challenged by respondent No.3 herein

before KAT and the KAT on the ground that subsequent

RTC's show the possession of the land by the cultivator

as owner and that the petitioner herein had not applied

for grant of occupancy rights after the land resumed

under the provision of KVOA and that there is no

evidence of re-grant allowed the appeal and set-aside

the order passed by the respondent No.2. Aggrieved by

the same, the instant writ petition is filed.

4. The case of the respondent No.3 is that, the

petitioner was never a tenant on the property bearing

Sy.No.53 originally consist of 6 acres 12 guntas the

land and the entire land belong to one Smt. Lakshmi

Devamma and the said land vested with the

Government, after coming in to force of Karnataka

Village Offices Abolition Act and the said land were re-

granted in favour of said Smt. Laksmi Devamma. In the

meanwhile, there was a partition in the family of

Smt. Lakshmi Devamma and the land in question fell to

the share of Sri. Krishnamurty from whom respondent

No.3 has purchased the property and that the petitioner

has no right what so ever over the same and prays for

dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate

has produced the entire file pertaining to the lands in

question. It reveals that the land in question was

attached to village office and that after coming in to

force of KVOA Act, the land vested with the Government

and thereafter 2 acres 19 guntas was re-granted to one

Smt.Lakshmi Devamma and that in the RTCs, name of

the father of the petitioner is reflected as cultivator of

the said land from the year 1969 and the wife of the

predecessor in title of respondent No.3 in her evidence

has deposed that the said land was been cultivated by

the father of the petitioner herein from very long time

and has continued to be in possession and cultivating

the land. The KAT while passing the impugned order

has failed to take note the afore mentioned fact and the

said order for that reason is liable to be set aside.

However, it is also noticed that father of the petitioner

has filed O.S.No.415/1970 before II Munsiff Court,

Bengaluru, wherein he has prayed for declaration to

declare him as tenant of the property in question. It is

also noticed from the file produced by learned AGA that

there is an unregistered release deed, wherein the

petitioner's father has released his right over the

property in favor of one Sri. Patel Venkataramanappa in

respect of certain land and had undertaken to withdraw

the original suit before the trial Court.

      6.    Learned         AGA     further      states        the

subsequently,    the    suit   before     II   Munsiff    Court,

Bengaluru came to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

7. Based on the said documents it is

contended by respondent No.3 that the petitioner did

not continue as a tenant in respect of property in

question and irrespective of whether release deed is

valid or not it is sufficient proof to show that the

petitioner was not in possession of the property in

question as a tenant from the year 1970 onwards.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing

for petitioner submits that the land which are subject

matter of original suit and the unregistered release

deed are completely different from land which are

subject matter of this writ petition.

9. It is his contention that his tenancy right in

respect of land which is the subject matter of present

writ petition is concerned has never been given up.

10. Learned AGA is not in a position to state

whether land which are subject matter of instant writ

petition and that of original suit and release deed

referred to above are not one and the same. It is

further noticed that the above aspect has not been

considered either by respondent No.2 or the KAT.

11. For the said reasons, I am of the opinion,

that it would be appropriate to remand the matter back

to the respondent No.2 reserving liberty to the parties

to establish their claim by adducing necessary evidence

in accordance with law. Hence, the following;

ORDER

Writ petition is allowed and remanded.

The impugned order dated 21.07.2017 passed in

Appeal No.443/2011 by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at

Bangaluru is hereby set-aside.

The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 to

hear the matter afresh by giving opportunity to the

parties concerned in accordance with law and take

appropriate decision.

The parties shall appear before the respondent on

04.04.2022 without further notice.

Respondent No.2 shall dispose of the matter as

expeditiously as possible.

No order as to costs.

In view of disposal of main petition all pending

IAs stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BH/VS