Smt.Lakshmi Kw/O Late Sri Dasara ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 9327 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt.Lakshmi Kw/O Late Sri Dasara ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2023

                                 1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        WRIT PETITION NO.108625 OF 2019 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.     SMT.LAKSHMI
       W/O LATE SRI DASARA NARAYANAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

2.     VENKATESH
       S/O LATE SRI. ANJINAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

3.     HANUMAYYA
       S/O LATE SRI ANJINAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

4.     KRISHNAMURTHY
       S/O LATE SRI DODDA GURUSWAMY
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

5.     RAJAMMA
       W/O LATE SRI THIMMPPA
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

6.     BASAVARAJ
       S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

7.     SHEKAMMA
       W/O LATE SRI RAMAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
       PETITIONERS ARE ALL
       R/O VADDATTI VILLAGE AND POST,
       BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 116.
                                             ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.K RAGHAVENDRA RAO & SRI. V VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATES)
                                2




AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
     M.S. BUILDING,
     BENGALURU-560 001,
     REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BALLARI DISTRICT,
     BALLARI-583 101.

3.   THE TAHASILDAR
     BALLARI TALUK,
     BALLARI-583 101.

4.   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
     BALLARI-583 101.

5.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     TALUK PANCHAYATH,
     BALLARI-583 101.

6.   THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     VILLAGE WATER SUPPLY AND
     SEWERAGE SUB-DIVISION,
     BALLARI-583 101.

7.   THE TAHSILDAR
     KURUGODU,
     BALLARI TALUK,
     BALLARI-583 101.

                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.P.N.HALLI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 & R7;
SRI.V.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)

      THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
COMMUNICATION     IN   NO.Taapamba/ukhaayoo-koosha/2018-19
DATED 21.03.2019 SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.5 TO RESPONDENT
NO.6 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-H INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO S.NO.281
OF VADADATTI VILLAGE IS CONCERNED AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED
COMMUNICATION IN NO.Taapamba/ukhaayoo-koosha/2018-19/1116
                                3




DATED 25.03.2019 SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.5 TO RESPONDENT
NO.7 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-J ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION.

      THIS PETITION HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 25.09.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned

communication in No.Taapamba/ukhaayoo-koosha/2018-

19 dated 21.03.2019 sent by respondent No.5 to

respondent No.6 as per Annexure-H and consequent

communication in No.Taapamba/ukhaayoo-koosha/2018-

19/1116 dated 25.03.2019 sent by respondent No.5 to

respondent No.7 as per Annexure-J.

2. The petitioners have filed the captioned petition

by contending that the petitioners family is personally

cultivating the petition land bearing Sy.No.281. The

petitioners have further claimed that legal heirs of one

Hanumanthappa have filed Form No.1A seeking grant of

occupancy rights as tenants and the same is pending

adjudication before the Land Tribunal, Bellary. The

petitioners have challenged the impugned communications

wherein the respondent/authorities intend to utilize the

petition land for construction of a tank in the interest of

public at large. The petitioners grievance is that their

ancestors were tenants of land in question under Inam and

their application seeking grant of occupancy rights is

pending consideration before the Land Tribunal and

therefore, the petitioners claim that the

respondent/authorities under the garb of constructing

water tank cannot alter the character of the suit land as

tenancy issue is seized before the Land Tribunal, Bellary.

3. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 have contested the

captioned petition. A detailed memo is filed by respondent

Nos.4 to 6 on 29.08.2023. The respondents have

seriously disputed the petitioners claim over the suit land.

Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the memo have taken a specific

contention that the owner of the land namely

H.Raghavendra Rao submitted a declaration under Section

66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act including subject

lands. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 have placed reliance on

the Land Tribunal order dated 29.09.1981 to demonstrate

that petition land was never a tenanted land and no

proceedings are pending insofar as petition land is

concerned. Placing reliance on the Land Tribunal order

dated 29.09.1981, the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have

contended that except land situated at Somasamudra, the

other lands are not tenanted lands. The respondent Nos.4

to 6, therefore, contended that the present petition land

has vested with the Government and pursuant to vesting

of the petition lands, the concerned authority have taken

possession and mahazar is drawn in that regard in

presence of panchas. Along with the memo, the Land

Tribunal order dated 29.09.1981 is placed on record. The

respondent Nos.4 to 6 have also placed on record the

mahazar drawn on 23.08.1980 indicating that the

concerned authority have taken possession of the petition

land bearing Sy.No.281. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 have

also submitted a detailed synopsis to substantiate and

counter petitioner's stand taken in the captioned petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would

vehemently argue and contend that the claim made by the

petitioners family before the Land Tribunal is pending

consideration in respect of the petition land. She would

vehemently argue and contend that land the land in

question is an Inam land and petitioners ancestors were

cultivating the land as tenants for past several decades

and their application in Form No.1A is pending

consideration and therefore respondent Nos.4 to 6 under

the garb of public interest at large cannot alter the

character of the petition land. She would vehemently

argue and contend that the petitioners names are reflected

in the revenue records from 1966 to 1997 and the entries

are abruptly changed and thereby entering the name of

the Government in the revenue records is illegal and

without any basis and contrary to procedure contemplated

under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

She would point out that the petitioners have grown cotton

and chillies in the petition land and therefore, respondent

Nos.4 to 6 have no locus to interfere with the petitioners

peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land in

question. She has also placed reliance on the judgment

rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rame Gowda

vs. M.Varadappa Naidu1.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent Nos.4 to 6 while countering the arguments

advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the erstwhile Inamdar has submitted a

declaration under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act and the details of land are clearly furnished in

the said declaration and therefore, he would contend that

declaration would clinch the entire controversy between

the parties. Referring to the letter issued by the erstwhile

Inamdar/owner, he would vehemently argue and contend

that the said document clearly indicates that the erstwhile

owner have surrendered the petition land to the

Government and in the said declaration, there is

absolutely no indication that tenants are cultivating the

petition land in question. He has also placed reliance on

the order of the Land Tribunal which has passed an order

on due enquiry relying upon the letter dated 17.02.1981.

He would point out that the Land Tribunal having taken

(2004) 1 SCC 769

cognizance of the declaration submitted by the owner has

ordered that Government should take possession of all the

lands belonging to Raghavendra Rao including the petition

land under Section 67(2) and (3) of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act. Strong reliance is placed on the order sheet

of the Land Tribunal to demonstrate that the petitioners

have not claimed any tenancy rights insofar as petition

land is concerned.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.4 to 6 would further submit that the petitioners have

not furnished any revenue records indicating that the

petitioners names were found in the cultivators column for

a particular period i.e., 1969 to 1973. He would point out

that the Governments name was mutated on 04.11.1995.

It is in this background, he would contend that petitioners

have no locus to question the communications vide

Annexures-H and J, wherein respondent No.6 has notified

that the lands in Asundi Village including the petitioners

land are required for allotting coolie work under MANREGA

scheme and this scheme is in regard to formation of fresh

water reservoir. Reliance is also placed on letter dated

25.03.2019 issued by the respondent No.3, wherein on

spot inspection made by the Taluk Nodal Officers, a

direction is issued to form a water reservoir in the petition

land. Therefore, he would point out that the captioned

petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed as

interest of public at large is involved and the construction

of fresh water reservoir is the need of the hour and in

absence of any iota of evidence to indicate that petitioners

claim seeking grant of occupancy rights is pending before

the Land Tribunal, the captioned petition cannot be

entertained.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.4 to 6 and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3

and 7.

8. The petitioners are resisting the impugned

communications on the ground that their claim on tenancy

rights is pending consideration before the Land Tribunal,

Bellary. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 that though this

petition is filed in 2019, the petitioners, for reasons best

known to them, have not placed on record the update of

the proceedings pending before the Land Tribunal. This

Court would also find some force in the submission made

by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to

6 who has placed reliance on the order sheet of the Land

Tribunal proceedings which is produced by petitioners

themselves. The last order passed by the Land Tribunal is

dated 25.08.1994. It would be useful for this Court to cull

out the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 25.08.1994

which reads as under:

"PÀjAiÀįÁ¬ÄvÀÄ MAzÀ£É CfðzÁgÀ ºÁdgÀÄ G½zÀ 4 CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ. Cfð ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ ¥À¸ð À £À¯ï E£ÁA ¨sÀÆ«Ä EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ SÁvÉzÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀĨsª À z À ÁgÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ EzÀÄÝ C£ÀĨsª À z À ÁgÀgÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀ Cfð ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ ºÀPÀÄÌ vÀªÉÄ §gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ vÀªÀÄä°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉU½ À ®èªAÉ zÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛg.É E°è UÉÃt ¥À±æ Éß EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ExÀåxð À PÉÌ ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄAqÀ½UÉ ªÀÄgÀ½¹zÉ.

     ¸À»/-                           ¸À»/-
     ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà                  UÀÄgÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä

     ¸À»/-                           ¸À»/-
     zÁgÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà             r.wªÀÄä¥Àà"

9. On reading the above said order, it is clearly

evident that the applicants before the Land Tribunal have

admitted that they have no documents to substantiate the

tenancy rights over the petition land. This Court would

also find that petitioners are not able to demonstrate as to

how they are related to the original applicants who had

filed Form No.1A seeking grant of occupancy rights in

respect of petition land.

10. Be that as it may, if the order sheet of the Land

Tribunal proceedings indicate that the original applicants

have not shown any inclination to prosecute Form No.1A

and if the proceedings are dropped at the instance of the

petitioners, it can be gathered from the order sheet dated

25.08.1994 culled out supra and can be presumed that no

proceedings are pending in respect of petition land. The

contention of petitioners that petition land cannot be

diverted for public purpose as their tenancy claim is

pending consideration before the Land Tribunal cannot be

acceded to. The petitioners have no locus to question the

right of the State Government in dealing with surplus land

which stood surrendered at the instance of the owner of

the land in question.

11. The documents produced by respondent Nos.4

to 6 more particularly, Land Tribunal order dated

29.09.1981 passed in case No.2177/74-75 clearly reveals

that petition land was not at all subject matter of tenancy

and therefore, petition land was taken over by the

Government under Section 67(2) and (3) of the Karnataka

Land Reforms Act. The original owner has filed a

declaration under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act and in view of surrender by the owner, the

Government has taken possession which is evident from

the panchanamas dated 23.08.1980 produced along with

memo filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6.

12. This Court is more than satisfied that

petitioners have no locus to question the impugned

communication vide Annexure-H. The contesting

respondents' stand that land was surrendered to the

Government stands further strengthened in view of the

memo dated 12.06.1981 issued by the Special Tahsildar,

Office of the Land Reforms, Bellary. It would be also

useful for this Court to cull out the said memo dated

12.06.1981 which is placed on record by respondent Nos.4

to 6 and the same reads as under:

"r.£ÀA.2177: 74-75 «±ÉõÀ vÀº¹ À ¯ÁÝgï, ¨sÀÆ. ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÀbÃÉ j §¼Áîj, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16-06-81.

ªÉĪÉÆ

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨sÀÆ. ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ §¼Áîj vÁ®ÄPÀÄ ¸ÉÆêÀĸÀªÀÄÄzÀæ, AiÀÄgÀAæ UÀ½V ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀzÀÝmÉÖ UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À - ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¸Áé¢Ãü £ÀPÉÌ vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ:

F PɼU À É PÁt¹zÀ UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æÃ. JZï. gÁWÀªÃÉ AzÀæ gÁªÀÅ vÀAzÉ Qæµg ÀÚ ÁªÀÅ EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸j À ¯É ¥ÀmÁÖ EzÀÄÝ. CªÀgÀ PÉÆjPÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸À¢æ ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÁ¬Ä 61 ¸ÀPëÀ£ï 44(2)E ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸Áé¢Ãü £ÀPÉÌ vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛz.É

UÁæªÀÄ ¸Àªð É £ÀA§gÀÄ «¹ÛÃtð ¸ÉƪÀĸÀªÀÄÄzÀæ 500 11-41 AiÀÄgÀAæ UÀ½V 79 25-04 ªÀzÀÝmÉÖ 45 10-56 281 24-65

PÁgÀt ¸À¢æ UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À ¯ÉPÁÌ¢Pü j À UÀ¼ÀÄ UÁæªÀįÉPÀÌU¼ À ° À è ¸À¢æ ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀ JAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¸ÀPÉƼÀî vÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F PɼU À É ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀªg À À UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ ¸À¢æ ¥ÀmÁÖzÁgÀ ²æÃ.gÁWÀªÃÉ AzÀg æ Áªï EªÀgÀÄ ¸À¢æ ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä AiÀÄw߸ÀÄvÀÛzÀÝgÉ JAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §A¢zÉ. PÁgÀt UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼° À è ªÉįÁÌt¹  zÀ ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀ±PÀ ÉÌ vÉUz É ÀÄ PÉÆArzÉ JAzÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ CªÀÅUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß RjâUÉ PÉƼÀîPÉÆqÀzAÉ zÀÄ w½¸ÀvPÀ ÀÌzÀÄÝ. EzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É K£ÁzÀgÀÄ RjâUÀ¼ÀÄ CzÀg,É CzÀPÉÌ CªÀgÃÉ dªÁ§ÄzÁgÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¸ÀvPÀ ÀÌzÀÄÝ. EzÀÄ CwdgÁ.

¸À»/-

«±ÉõÀ vÀº¹ À ¯ÁÝgï,

¨sÀÆ. ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÀbÃÉ j §¼Áîj.

UÁæªÀįÉPÁÌ¢PÁj, ¸ÉÆêÀĸÀªÀÄÄzsÀæ, AiÀÄgÀAæ UÀ½V, ªÀzÀÝmÉÖ."

13. If these significant details are looked into, this

Court is of the view that petitioners have failed to

substantiate their claim of tenancy rights. The petitioners

have not placed on record any documents to demonstrate

that they are cultivating the land in question since the

time of their ancestors as tenants and the application filed

by their family seeking grant of occupancy rights is

pending consideration before the jurisdictional Land

Tribunal. The documents placed on record by respondent

Nos.4 to 6 clearly demonstrates that original owner

namely Raghavendra Rao filed a declaration under Section

66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and furnished the

details of the lands including the petition land. A letter is

also addressed by the original owner wherein he has

expressed his intention to surrender his lands to the

Government on the ground that he is not cultivating the

same. The Mahazar drawn on 23.08.1980 also depicts

that State has taken possession of the petition land

bearing Sy.No.281 totally measuring 24 acres 65 cents.

14. The material on record clearly demonstrates

that petition land is vested with the State and the State

has handed over the petition land to the Gram Panchayath

and it is in this background, the office of the Executive

Officer, Taluk Panchayath i.e., respondent No.5 has

addressed a letter to respondent No.6 as per Annexure-H

that the petition land including other lands are intended to

be utilized for formation of fresh water reservoir and

therefore, a communication is sent to secure coolies to

implement the said project under MANREGA scheme. The

material on record clearly demonstrates that petition land

has stood vested with the Government and therefore, the

petition land is at the disposal of the State Government

and has absolute discretion to deal with surplus land in the

interest of public at large. Therefore, the grounds urged in

the writ petition cannot be entertained.

15. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly

stands dismissed.

The pending interlocutory application, if any, does

not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA