Basappa S/O Kallappa Lagamannavar vs The Deputy Commissioner
2024 Latest Caselaw 19810 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Basappa S/O Kallappa Lagamannavar vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 August, 2024

Author: Krishna S.Dixit

Bench: Krishna S.Dixit

                                              -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC-D:11218-DB
                                                           WA No.100281 of 2021




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                            DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
                                           PRESENT
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
                                             AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
                            WRIT APPEAL NO.100281 OF 2021 (KLR-LG)
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.   BASAPPA
                        S/O. KALLAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR,
                        AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. HEBBALLI-580112,
                        TQ/DIST. DHARWAD.

                   2.   NAGAPPA
                        S/O. KALLAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR,
                        AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. HEBBALLI-580112,
                        TQ/DIST. DHARWAD.

                   3.   PARAMESHWAR
                        S/O. SIDDAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR,
Digitally signed
                        AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
by JAGADISH T           R/O. HEBBALLI-580112,
R                       TQ/DIST. DHARWAD.
Location: High
Court Of                                                          ...APPELLANTS
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
                   (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)


                   AND:

                   1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                        DHARWAD DISTRICT,
                        DHARWAD-580001.

                   2.   SMT. MANJULA,
                        W/O. RAMACHANDRARAO JAHAGIRDAR,
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC-D:11218-DB
                                        WA No.100281 of 2021




     AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O. HEBBALLI-580112,
     TQ/DIST DHARWAD.

3.   SMT. ANURADHA
     W/O. SHRIKANT THITE,
     AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O HEBBALLI-580112,
     TQ/DIST DHARWAD.

4.   SMT. PADMAJA
     W/O. GOPIVILLAS KATTI,
     AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O NEAR BRINDAVAN HOTEL,
     MAHADEV GALLI,
     BELAGAVI-590001,
     TQ/DIST. BELAGAVI.

5.   SMT. DEVAYANI
     W/O. SANJEEV MUTALIK,
     AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O AINAPUR-591303, TQ. ATHANI,
     DIST. BELAGAVI.

6.   RAMAPPA
     S/O. SANNABASAPPA HEBBALLI,
     AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. UNKAL, MEESI GOUDRA ONI,
     TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1,
    SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5,
    SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3,
    SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

    THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED.07.09.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.105488/2018 (KLR-LG) BY ALLOWING THE
WP NO.105488/2018 (KLR-LG) & ETC.,
                                    -3-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC-D:11218-DB
                                                  WA No.100281 of 2021




    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
           AND
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

                    ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)

Appellants having lost their case in

W.P.No.105488/2018 (KLR-LG) at the hands of the

learned Single Judge are grieving in appeal against the

order dated 07.09.2020. In the said petition, they had

called in question Deputy Commissioner's order dated

17.07.2018 whereby regrant of occupancy rights came to

be made in favour of predecessor of the private

respondents herein in respect of subject lands. The Deputy

Commissioner had made that order in terms of

Government Notification No.RD 17 INM 2006, dated

26.06.2007.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

vehemently argues that the subject land was granted to

the father of his clients viz., Mr. Kallappa Lagamannavar

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11218-DB

vide order dated 10.06.1959 under the provisions of Rule

6 of the Bombay Saranjams, Jahagirs, and Other Inams of

Political, Nature, Resumption Rules, 1952; the payment

towards grant levy has also been paid by the original

grantee in the extended period; the said grant having not

been revoked till date, the appellants have been

continuing in the occupation of the said lands; therefore,

the Deputy Commissioner could not have ordered regrant

at all. All these aspects having not been duly considered

by the learned Single Judge, his impugned order is liable

to be voided.

3. Learned Advocates appearing for the private

respondents and the learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for the official respondents make

submission in justification of the impugned order of the

learned Single Judge and the reasons on which it has been

structured. They contend that the appellants lack locus

standii; they have suppressed material facts: their

application in Form 7 for grant of occupancy right is

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11218-DB

rejected by the Land Tribunal; their application in Form 7A

for the grant of land is also rejected; their appeal against

rejection is negatived by the Appellate Tribunal; against all

these they had filed writ petition and that too is dismissed;

further, their injunctive suit has been dismissed; Regular

Appeal against the dismissal is also dismissed; even their

Regular Second Appeal too met with the same fate. So

contending, they seek dismissal of the writ appeal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we

decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that his clients have been continuing in the occupation of the subject land pursuant to Deputy Commissioner's grant order dated 10.06.1959 made in favour of their predecessor is only a partial truth. There is such a grant order cannot be much doubted. However, the grant was subject to payment within a specified period of two years. The said payment was made decades thereafter. It is a settled position of law that, where

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11218-DB

a conditional grant is made and conditions are not complied with, such grants do not take effect. This apart, the State Government vide order 26.01.1969 granted this land along with other in favour of one Mr. D.L.Heblikar under whom the private respondents herein claim. Learned Single Judge, at para 13 of the impugned order, has rightly said that the grant made to the father of the appellants was rescinded because of non-compliance of the condition.

(b) Secondly, the contention as to appellants having any interest in the land much less its possession is liable to be rejected because: Their father had filed Form 7 under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and that came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 01.09.1980. The same has attained finality, there being no challenge to it. He had also filed Form 7A under Section 77A of the said Act for the grant of land. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 17.11.2008 rejected the same. Appeal No.943 of 2011 filed by the appellants herein came to be rejected by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 28.11.2016. We are told that appellants' writ petition against the same also met the same fate at the hands of a learned Single Judge of this Court.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11218-DB

(c) The above apart, the relentless appellants had filed an injunctive suit in O.S. No.513/2002 and the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) dismissed the same on 03.10.2007. They preferred R.A. No.101/2007 and that also came to be dismissed on 25.02.2009. Further challenge was made in R.S.A. No.5441/2009 and this Court vide order dated 26.02.2015 dismissed the same. Ideally, speaking appellants in their pleadings in Writ Petition except mentioning suit, have blissfully kept silent about the RA, RSA, Land Tribunal order, Assistant Commissioner's order & Writ Petition. Be the arguable suppression as it may; what emerges from all these proceedings is that the appellants do not have any interest in or right to the subject land. That being the position, they have no litigable interest in the matter. The order of the learned Single Judge is animated with all these factors and therefore, unassailable.

(d) Lastly, the contention of appellants' counsel that his clients were not aware of the Government Order dated 05.02.1969 whereby grant of this land along with other was accorded to the predecessor of the private respondents herein is difficult to believe. The

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11218-DB

said order although does not mention names of the appellants or their father, specifically says about the land in Sy.No.331. No pleadings to take up such a contention are demonstrated from the records. The Apex Court has observed that even an order without jurisdiction also cannot be readily ignored and that it is capable of legal consequences, unless set aside in appropriate proceedings vide STATE OF PUNJAB VS.

GURDEV SINGH AIR 1992 SC 111. No explanation is offered as to why no challenge was laid to this order all these decades.

In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid

of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is,

costs having been made easy.

Sd/-

(KRISHNA S.DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE

KMS, CT:VP