Karnataka High Court
The Special Deputy Commissioner vs Shri K K Sheriff on 15 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
WP No. 30035 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 30035 OF 2018 (LR-)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
ENFORCEMENT CELL, BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURE, AAG A/W
SRI. SIDHARTH, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI. K.K. SHERIFF S/O. LATE KHAJA MOHAMAD,
KHADER SHERIFF.
2. SRI. K. KAMALAUDDIN SHERIFF,
S/O. K.K. SHERIFF,
ROHAN
HADIMANI 3. SMT. RABIYA SHERIFF,
T
W/O. LATE K. NEHALUDDIN SHERIFF,
Digitally
signed by
ROHAN 4. SRI. K. AFZALUDDIN SHERIFF,
HADIMANI T
S/O. SRI. K.K. SHERIFF,
5. SRI. FAZALUDDIN SHERIFF,
S/O. K.K. SHERIFF,
6. SRI. K. AKMALUDDIN SHERIFF,
S/O. SRI. K.K. SHERIFF,
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT: NO 54, KHADER SHERIFF GARDENS,
LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027]
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
WP No. 30035 of 2018
7. SRI. K. AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF,
S/O. SRI. K.K. SHERIFF
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
7(A) MRS. AYISHA AJMAL SHERIFF,
W/O. LATE KHAJA AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 169,
AA VILLA, 2ND CROSS, DOMLUR,
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 071.
7(B) MRS. SAHER ZAIN FAROOK,
D/O. LATE KHAJA AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 10/8, Z F VILLA, GROUND FLOOR,
BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 046.
7(C) MR. KHAJA SARIM AJMAL SHERIFF,
S/O. LATE KHAJA AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 169,
AA VILLA, 2ND CROSS, DOMLUR,
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 071.
7(D) MR. ANNUR AJMAL SHERIFF KHAJA,
S/O. LATE KHAJA AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. 169,
AA VILLA, 2ND CROSS, DOMLUR, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 071.
7(E) MS. ALINA ARYA SHERIFF,
D/O. LATE KHAJA AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO. 169,
AA VILLA, 2ND CROSS, DOMLUR, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 071.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T.HEBBAR, ADV. FOR R2 TO R5 & R7(A-E);
SRI. A.MADHUSUDHANA, ADV. FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
ORDER DATED 24.10.2011 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
ANEKAL, ANEKAL IN NO.LRF.CR(11)179-184/1975-76; ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2011 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
WP No. 30035 of 2018
ANEKAL, ANEKAL IN NO.LRF.CR(11)179-184/1975-76 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 06.10.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2011 passed in
No.LRF.CR(11)179-184/1975-76, by the Land Tribunal,
Anekal Taluk, Anekal, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Land
Tribunal'), the State has filed this writ petition.
2. The writ petition pertains to whether the
respondents held excess land than the ceiling limit as on
01.03.1974.
3. The respondents are holding lands in
Bilavaradahalli and Kannayakana Agrahara of Anekal
Taluk. The Land Tribunal passed order on 22.07.1998,
holding that respondents are entitled to hold 378 acres of
land, but they are having an excess of 108 acres 30
guntas of land. Passing of the said impugned order
resulted in filing of Writ Petition Nos.5386-91/2001
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
clubbed with Writ Petition No.40984/2001; Writ Petition
No.11854/2006 and Writ Petition No.20543/2007. A
combined reading of the orders passed in the
aforementioned writ petitions has an effect of recognizing
that the respondents are entitled to hold 378 acres of land
and if there is any excess, the same has to be surrendered
to the Government and the order dated 22.07.1998
passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter
was remanded back to the Land Tribunal to conduct fresh
enquiry and pass appropriate order in accordance with
law. Pursuant to the same, the impugned order has been
passed.
4. In the impugned order, it has been held that
the combined land holdings of the respondents as on the
relevant date was less than 378 acres and accordingly, it
was held that the respondents are not required to
surrender any land. Aggrieved by the same, the present
writ petition is filed by the State.
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
5. The case of the petitioners is that, respondents
are having an excess of 108 acres 30 guntas of land and
the impugned order has been passed erroneously, wherein
it has been concluded that the respondents do not have
any excess land as on the relevant date. For that reason,
it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the
matter be remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh
consideration.
6. Per contra, respondents submit that the
impugned order was passed way back on 24.10.2011 and
the writ petition has been filed on 12.07.2018 and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. It is
further submitted that, even otherwise the impugned
order is passed in accordance with law and it is prayed
that the writ petition be dismissed.
7. The questions that arise for consideration in the
instant writ petition are, whether there is an inordinate
delay on the part of petitioners in filing the writ petition
and the writ petition has to be dismissed for delay and
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
laches and if not, then whether there is any error in
computing the lands held by the respondents as on the
relevant date by the Land Tribunal.
8. Though there is inordinate delay in filing of the
writ petition by the petitioners and the same is not
satisfactorily explained, nevertheless, this Court by way of
interim orders found it fit to direct the Tahsildar to conduct
a survey as to the lands held by respondents as on the
relevant date and submit a report. Under the said
circumstances, it would be appropriate to examine the
case on merits rather than dismissing the same on the
ground of delay and laches, however, taking into
consideration, situations where third party rights have
been created over any portion of the property.
9. The Tahsildar after conducting the survey has
come to the conclusion that, the respondents, as on the
relevant date, owned 494 acres 38 guntas of land. The
said report has been filed on 10.12.2018. However, the
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
same is contested to be erroneous both by the petitioners
and respondents in the course of arguments.
10. The respondents have replied to the said survey
report and have contended the same to be erroneous. It is
submitted that, they together owned 377 acres 38 guntas
of agricultural land, which is less than 378 acres as on the
relevant date. The details of the lands held according to
them are as follows:
Village Sy.No. Land holding of Mr. K.K.
Sheriff and individual
Holders.
A-G
Bilvaradahalli 6 58.30
Bilvaradahalli 7 146.30
Bilvaradahalli 31 170.14
Kannayakanna 16 38.00
Agrahara
Kannayakanna 27/1 2.14
Agrahara
Total: 416.08
Less: Extent of A-G (-)
land already 20.10
converted
Less: Extent held 12.00 (-)
by married
daughter Jabeen
Sultana
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
Less: Extent held 6.00
by Mr. Mukaram
Ahmed M (-) 38.10
(S/o. Mrs. Jabeen
Sultana)
Total extent
held by all the 377.38
declarants and
land holders
In the impugned order, regarding the above, it has
been held as under:
"The Tahsildar. Anekal Taluk, Anekal has submitted
a report along with reports that submitted by the
Surveyor and the Village Accountant which clearly
reflect that on an enquiry of survey that has been
conducted by them in respect of the holdings of the
Respondents in the aforesaid Survey Number and
according to which in S.No. 16 of Kannayakana
Agrahara village, there is only an extent of 38A.00 in
physical possession and enjoyment of the
Respondents.
It would be relevant to mention that the
Respondents have accepted the said report without any
agitation and contention and in view of the same, the
contention of the Respondents that they hold only
38.00 Acres of land in S.no.16 of Kannayakana
Agrahara village is an acceptable and valid one
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the earlier findings
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
of this Tribunal that the Respondents are holding 133
Acres 14 Guntas of land in Sy No.16 of Kannayakana
Agrahara village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk does not
stand to reason, it is untenable muchless it is not
based on true facts and actualities.
Consequent on the above finding of this Tribunal, it
could be held that the Respondents are having the actual
holdings as under:
Village Survey Nos. Land
holdings of Shri K.K.
Sheriff and his family
A. G.
Bilavaradahalli 06 58 30
Bilavaradahalli 07 146 30
Bilavaradahalli 31 170 14
Kannayakana 16 38 00
Agrahara
Kannayakana 27/1 2 14
Agrahara
Total: 416 08
From the above narration, it is clear that 20.00
Acres of converted land and 18A.00 of land held by the
daughter's family of K.K. Sheriff separately have to be
deducted and that therefore, the total holdings of the
Respondents arrive at only 377A.38gs., (416A.08gs. -
20A.1w0gs. = 395A.18gs. - 18A.00gs., = 377A.38gs.).
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
Thus, as per the earlier findings of the Tribunal and also
under current findings of this Tribunal, the Respondents
are eligible to hold 378 Acres and that therefore the
respondents holdings are well within the ceiling limit
prescribed under section 63 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961.
In furtherance, as already brought out above, the
Respondents have no objection for taking possession of
95A.00 in S.No. 16 of Kannayakana Agrahara village,
Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk.
The Land Tribunal has therefore came to the
conclusion that since the Respondents do not hold any
excess extent of land, the action on the part of the
Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal in mutating 108 Acres
and 30 Guntas of land in Sy.No.31 of Bilvaradahalli
village in the name of the "Government is without any
basis and it is liable to be annulled. Accordingly, it is
annulled The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk is therefore
directed to restore the names of the Respondents viz.,
Shri K.K. Sheriff and his family members in the revenge
records such as Pahanis/RTCs etc., in respect of the said
extent of 108 Acres 30 Guntas in Sy.No.31 of
Bilvaradahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekall Taluk."
11. Thereafter, on 22.08.2023, the State has filed
an affidavit along with certain documents and has
contended that the respondents hold land to an extent of
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
431 acres 11 guntas in Billavaradahalli and 115 acres 10
guntas of land in Kannanayakana Agrahara, totaling 546
acres 21 guntas of lands. Further, for the first time in the
said affidavit, the State contends that the respondents are
totally entitled to hold only 75 acres 24 guntas and the
rest needs to be forfeited.
12. As already stated above, the Land Tribunal for
the first time in its order dated 22.07.1998 came to the
conclusion that respondents are entitled to hold 378 acres
and nothing over and above that should be considered as
excess land and forfeited. The State till filing of the
affidavit on 22.08.2023, had no objection for the same. It
did not contest the fact of respondents being entitled to
own 378 acres of land in any of the writ petitions filed
pursuant to the first order of the Land Tribunal and even
when the instant writ petition was filed, nowhere it is
mentioned that the respondents are not entitled to hold
378 acres of land. Under the said circumstances, the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
question of reopening the fact that the respondents are
entitled to own 378 acres of land does not arise.
13. Further, the impugned order is dated
24.10.2011. The writ petition is filed in the year 2018.
There is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition which
has not been satisfactorily explained. Further, as per the
submissions of respondents as detailed in paragraph No.10
(supra) respondents own only 377 acres 38 guntas of land
which is well within the ceiling limit. Further, there is a
possibility of third party rights being created due to the
inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, which cannot be
addressed in this writ petition.
14. In order to verify the exact lands held by
respondents, this Court directed the Tahsildar to conduct
survey and file a report, which according to the affidavit
filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban
District, is erroneous. In spite of giving opportunities to
the petitioners, they have failed to point out how the
respondents are having excess land. The Tribunal has
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
examined the records and has come to the conclusion that
the land held by respondents is within the ceiling limits.
The petitioners have merely produced certain RTC's and
have contended that the conclusion of the Tribunal is
wrong. Further, respondents themselves have stated that
if it is found that they own more lands in Kannayakana
Agrahara, than what is shown in paragraph No.10 (supra),
petitioners can proceed against the same.
15. Hence, under the circumstances, it is deemed
appropriate to permit the respondents to get their lands as
mentioned in paragraph No.10 (supra) surveyed and
marked and if they were in possession of any other lands
other than mentioned in paragraph No.10 (supra) as on
the relevant date, the State can always initiate appropriate
proceedings in the manner known to law, subject to third
party rights that might have been created due to
inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition.
However, the State is prohibited from interfering with the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45763
properties of the respondents mentioned in paragraph
No.10 (supra).
16. As the State failed to show how the impugned
order is erroneous, the writ petition is hereby, dismissed
subject to the observations made in paragraph No.15
(supra).
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
