IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.15976-15977/2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN 1. ARUNA D/O LATE GOPALA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SHEELA @ SHRILATHA D/O LATE GOPALA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. MADHURA D/O LATE GOPALA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. HARSHAVARDHANA S/O LATE GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 1 TO 4 ARE ALL RESIDING AT C/O LATHA RAMANAND, DOOR NO.1045/917, 1ST F MAIN, 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560085 5. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 6. JAYALAKSHMI S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 7. UMA S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 8. RAMESH S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 9. SURESH S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R5 TO R9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.32, VIJANAPURA, 1ST MAIN, DORRAVANINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016 10. SRINIVASAIAH S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9, 4TH CROSS, ADITYA EXTENSION, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560016 11. LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, 4TH CROSS, ADITYA EXTENSION, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560016 THE PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, SRI.P.ASHOK KUMAR, S/O LATE P.CHANGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NATARAJA EXTENSION, NEAR NAGARABHAVI, MUTHSANDRA ROAD, VARTHUR TOWN, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560077 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI GIRISH BANDI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036 4. N.RAMAKRISHNA S/O RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 5. K.SUBBALAKSHMI W/O BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 6. N.SATHYANARAYANA S/O BULLABHAI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESPODNENTS 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT HOSAKERE CAMP, GANGAVATHI TALUK KOPPALA DISTRICT 7. A VENKATARAMANA S/O VIGNESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 8. K.SATHYANARAYANA S/O VENKATARANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 9. K.VENKATESHWARA RAO S/O GOPALAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 9 ARE ALL RESIDING AT UTTARAGOWDA BEEDI, SHANINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO IMPUGNED ORDERS DTD:28.01.2013 IN R.A.No.39/2011-12 AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.10.2017 IN REV.PTN NO.351/2013-14 AS PER ANNEXURES-K AND L PERUSE THE SAME AND QUASH AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE KATHA AND ALL OTHER REVENUE ENTRIES AS PER ANNEXURE-F IN R.A.NO.132/2000-01 DTD:26.06.2002 AND AS PER ORDER DTD:7.5.2011 IN R.R.T[V] CR No.36/2010-11 AS PER ANNEXURE-H.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R It is not necessary to order issuance of notice to respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein at this stage.
2. Petitioners herein are seeking quashing of the order dated 03.10.2017 (Annexure ‘L’ to the petitions) passed by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, in dismissing the said revision petition while confirming the order dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure ‘K’ to the petitions) passed by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North sub-division, Bengaluru, in R.A. No.39/2011-2012. Petitioners have also sought for direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to effect khata of the petition schedule property in their favour and enter their names in the revenue records as per the order dated 26.06.2002 (Annexure ‘F’ to the petitions) passed by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North sub-division, Bengaluru, in R.A. No.132/2000-01 and as per the order dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure ‘H’ to the petitions) passed by the third respondent - Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, in proceedings No.RRT(V).CR.36/2010-11.
3. It is stated that Sri Lakshminarayanappa, the father of petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11 and grandfather of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 9, was an Archak of Sri Venugopalaswamy temple situate at Nallurahalli village, K.R. puram hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. Sri Lakshminarayanappa died leaving him surviving his four sons, namely, Sriyuths Gopalakrishna / Gopalakrishnaiah, Venkataramanappa (petitioner No.5), Srinivasaiah / Srinivasa (petitioner No.10) and Lakshmaiah (petitioner No.11 herein). Sri Lakshminaryanappa’s first son, Sri Gopalakrishna, died leaving him surviving his three daughters and a son, who are petitioner Nos.1 to 4 herein respectively. Petitioner Nos.6 to 9 are the children of petitioner No.5 - Sri Venkataramanappa.
4. According to petitioners, property bearing Sy.
No.91 measuring 03 Acres 20 guntas including 04 guntas of kharab land (described in the schedule to the petition as petition schedule property) and another land in Sy. No.10 both situate at Nallurahalli village, K.R. Puram hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, were the properties of the said Sri Venugopalaswamy temple. It is stated that Sri Lakshminarayanappa while performing pooja of diety in the said temple was also engaged in cultivation and possession of the petition schedule property. After coming into force of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, (for short, ‘the Act’), the said lands had vested with the Government.
5. It is further stated that after the death of Sri Lakshminarayanappa, his sons i.e., Sri Gopala Krishna/Gopalakrishnaiah, the father of petitioner Nos.1 to 4, petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11 filed application/s for re-grant of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk, in respect of different extent/s of land in Sy. Nos.91 and 10 situate at Nallurahalli village. Pursuant to the said applications, proceedings in LRF.INA.2552/83-84 were registered. Petitioners have referred to orders passed by Land Tribunal vide Annexures ‘A’ to ‘D’, wherein it is stated that as per the decision of the Land Tribunal dated 12.11.1986, Sri Gopalakrishnaiah (father of petitioner Nos.1 to 4) was declared as occupant in respect of lands measuring to an extent of 08 guntas in Sy. No.10/1 and 34 guntas in Sy. No.91/1; Sri Venkataramanappa (petitioner No.5) was declared as occupant in respect of lands measuring to an extent of 07 guntas in Sy. No.10/4 and 34 guntas in Sy. No.19/4 (91/4); Sri Srinivasaiah (petitioner No.10) was declared as occupant in respect of lands measuring to an extent of 07 guntas in Sy. No.10/3 and 34 guntas in Sy. No.19/3 (91/3) and Sri Lakshmaiah (petitioner No.11) was declared as occupant in respect of lands measuring to an extent of 07 guntas in Sy. No.10/2 and 34 guntas in Sy. No.19/2 (91/2). It is further stated that Sri Gopalakrishnaiah and petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11 were granted occupancy rights in respect of land/s measuring to an extent of 34 guntas each in Sy. No.91 vide Annexures ‘A’ to ‘D’ to the petitions and the said grant was subject to non-alienability condition for a period of 15 years. After deposit of premium amount with the Government, Sri Gopalakrishnaiah and his brothers were issued certificate of registration in Form No.10 dated 04.04.1997 (Annexure ‘E’ to the petitions) by Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk (Additional), Bengaluru.
6. It has come on record that during the pendency of proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Sri Gopalakrishnaiah and petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11 have sold respective portion/s of land in Sy. No.91 granted to them in favour of Smt. Rukmini N. (wife of Sri N. Nagaraja), Sri Rangadhamappa, Sri D.Ramaiah, Sri Indiraburaya and Sri R. Vijayakumar, the vendors of respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein. It is the contention of petitioners that since the said sale transactions took place during the pendency of proceedings before the Land Tribunal and the petition schedule property had vested with the Government after coming into force of the Act, the said sale transactions are hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Based on the said sale deeds, the vendors of respondent Nos.4 to 9 got transferred khata in their names.
7. In this background it is stated that Sri Lakshmaiah (petitioner No.11 herein) along with his brothers, Sri Gopalakrishna (father of petitioner Nos.1 to 5 herein), Sri Venkataramanappa (petitioner No.5 herein) and Srinivasa (petitioner No.10 herein) filed an appeal in R.A. No.132/2000- 01 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk, challenging the mutation orders vide M.R. Nos.8/94-95, 9/94-95, 13/94-95 and 15/94-95 passed by Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, in favour of respondents therein (vendors of petitioner Nos.4 to 9 herein) in respect of respective portion/s comprised in Sy. No.91.
8. The Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 26.06.2002 (Annexure ‘F’ to the petitions) has noted the sale transactions effected by petitioner/s therein in favour of respondent/s therein and has set aside the mutation orders vide M.R. Nos.8:94-95, 9:94-95, 13:94-95 and 15:94-95 passed by Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, on the ground that they were passed contrary to the provisions of law. While doing so, Assistant Commissioner has directed Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, to take necessary action to transfer khata in respect of different extents of land (stated to be purchased by respondents therein) comprised in Sy. No.91 after issuing notice to the concerned parties, and after verifying the documents and by following the procedure prescribed under law.
9. Subsequently, petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 5, 10 and 11 herein, filed writ petition in W.P. No.1479/2010 (KLR-RR/SUR) before this Court inter alia seeking direction to respondent No.3 – Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, to remove the names found in the record of rights, tenancy and crop details and to insert their names at column Nos.9 and 12(2) of the Record of Rights in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 16 guntas in Sy. No.91 situate at Nallurahalli village, as per mutation entry effected in their names vide M.R. No.2/2008-09 passed by Tahasildar. A coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure ‘G’ to the petitions), disposed of the said writ petitions with a direction to respondent No.3 – Special Tahasildar to consider the request of petitioners therein for making the consequential changes in the record of rights, if the mutation entry stood in their favour in respect of the lands in question.
10. After remand of the matter and pursuant to the direction dated 02.03.2010 issued by coordinate Bench of this Court, in the remanded proceedings No.RRT(V).CR.36/2010- 11, respondent No.3 herein – Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, passed order dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure ‘H’ to the petitions), wherein he has directed restoration of khata in respect of land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 20 guntas including 04 guntas of kharab in the names of petitioners therein (petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 5, 10 and 11 herein) and consequently, to carry out necessary entries in column Nos.9 and 12(2) of the revenue records.
11. When the matter stood thus, respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein, who are the subsequent purchasers of different portions of land in Sy. No.91, preferred an appeal in R.A.
No.39/2011-12 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner impugning the order dated 07.05.2011 passed by respondent No.3 herein – Tahasildar in proceedings No.RRT(V)CR.36/2010-11. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure ‘K’ to the petitions), has allowed the said appeal by setting the order dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure ‘H’ to the petitions) passed by Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, in proceedings No.RRT(V)CR.36/2010- 11 and the consequential mutation order in M.R. No.29/2010-
11 passed by Tahasildar. While doing so, Assistant Commissioner has directed Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, to restore the mutation entries in M.R. Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2000-01 in respect of the land in Sy. No.91 situate at the said Nellurahalli village in favour of the respective appellants in terms of the final order (dated 18.05.2011/18.08.2011) passed by the said Authority in R.A. No.19/2008-09 (preferred by Lakshmaiah and others).
12. The said order of Assistant Commissioner was the subject matter of challenge in Revision Petition No.351/2013-
14 preferred by petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 10 and 11 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru. Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 03.10.2017 (Annexure ‘L’ to the petitions) after considering the contentions of the parties and the material on record, has dismissed the said revision petition by confirming the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 28.01.2013 in proceedings No.RA(BE).39/2011-12 (R.A. No.39/2011-12). Revision Petitioners being aggrieved by the said order of Deputy Commissioner are before this Court.
13. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the material on record including the impugned orders passed by Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
14. The records would indicate that the petition schedule property i.e., land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 20 guntas including 04 guntas of kharab in Sy. No.91 was a devadaya inam land attached to Sri Venugopalaswamy Temple, of which Sri Lakshminarayanappa, was an Archak. Sri Lakshminarayanappa died leaving him surviving his sons, Sri Gopalakrishna / Gopalakrishnaiah, Sri Venkataramanappa, Sri Srinivasa / Srinivasaiah and Sri Lakshmaiah. After coming into force of the provisions of the Act, the said land stood vested in the Government. Sri Gopalakrishna, Sri Venkataramanappa, Sri Srinivasaiah and Sri Lakshmaiah filed application/s for re-grant of the said land before the Land Tribunal pursuant to which, proceedings No.LRF.INA.2552/1983-94 was registered before the land Tribunal. Sri Gopalakrishna and petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11 herein are stated to have been granted land measuring to an extent of 34 guntas each in Sy. No.91 by the Land Tribunal vide Annexures ‘A’ to ‘D’ to these petitions and they were registered as occupants in respect of 34 guntas of land each in Sy. No.91 vide Annexure ‘E’ to the petitions. During the pendency of proceedings before the Land Tribunal, they have sold certain extent/s of land in Sy. No.91 in favour of the respective vendor/s of respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein.
15. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 and 8 herein claim to be the owners of land/s measuring to an extent of 17 guntas each in Sy. No.91 and respondent Nos.7 and 9 claim to be the owners of land/s measuring to an extent of 34 guntas each in Sy. No.91 and the respective land/s has/have been mutated in the names of respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein vide M.R. Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2000-01.
16. Since petitioner Nos.1, 5, 10 and 11 herein tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the respective respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein, suits in: O.S. No.1123/2004 was filed by respondent No.4 – Sri Ramakrishna; O.S. No.1121/2004 was filed by respondent No.5 – Smt. K. Subbalakshmi; O.S. No.1196/2004 was filed by respondent No.6 - Sri N. Sathyanarayana; O.S. No.702/2004 was filed by respondent No.7 – Sri A. Venkataramana; O.S. No.1198/2004 was filed by respondent No.8 – Sri K. Sathyanarayana, and O.S. No.701/2004 was filed by respondent No.9 – Sri K. Venkateshwara Rao, against Sri Gopalakrishna and petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11 herein for the relief of permanent injunction before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,), Bengaluru. It is stated that some of the said suits including suit in O.S. No.1198/2004 has been decreed by the trial Court.
17. In appeal in R.A. No.39/2011-12, appellants – respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein have impugned the order dated 07.05.2011 passed by Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, in proceedings No.RRT(V)CR.36/2010-11, wherein Tahasildar after remand of the matter pursuant to the order dated 26.06.2002 passed by Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.132/2000-01 canceling mutation order Nos.8, 9, 13 and 15/1994-95 effected in favour of the vendors of respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein, has ordered for restoration of khata in respect of land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 20 guntas including 04 gunta of kharab in the names of Sri Gopalakrishna and petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11 herein.
18. In the said appeal (R.A. No.39/2011-12), appellants (respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein) contended that though there is a clause in the saguvali chit imposing non- alienability condition for a period of 15 years, since the provisions of the Act did not contemplate any such non- alienation period, the same could not be given effect to. In that behalf, the appellants therein (respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein) relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2004 Kar page 3298 (in the matter of Mariyappa vs. Dr. N. Thimmarayappa), wherein it is inter alia held that in the absence of any rules as on the date of the grant authorizing the officer to impose any such conditions restraining alienation, the transaction in question was not hit by Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, 1978.
19. It is further observed by the Assistant Commissioner that the proceedings in R.A. No.132/2000-01 (stated as R.A. No.132/2001-02 in the order dated 28.01.2013) preferred by Sri Gopalakrishna and petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11 herein challenging the mutation orders vide M.R. Nos.8, 9, 13 and 15 of 1994-95 passed by Tahasildar in favour of the vendors of respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein before the Assistant Commissioner, which appeal was initially allowed by order dated 26.06.2002 (Annexure ‘F’ to the petitions) by setting aside the said mutation orders, had culminated in final proceedings in R.A. No.19/2008-09 dated 18.05.2011 / 18.08.2011 by holding that respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein were entitled for mutation on the basis of respective sale deed executed in their favour. It has come on record that the said order dated 18.05.2011 / 18.08.2011 has attained finality. Sri Gopalakrishna (father of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 herein) during his lifetime and petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11 had/have not challenged the sale deeds under which they had sold different portion/s of land in Sy. No.91 in favour of the vendor/s of respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein, before the Civil Court. In the absence of any judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court canceling the sale deeds executed by Sri Gopalakrishna and petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11 herein, they or their legal heirs cannot seek mutation of portion/s of the petition land in their names.
20. The material on record discloses that in earlier writ petition in W.P. No.1479/2010 preferred by petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 5, 10 and 11 before this Court seeking direction to Special Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, to enter their names in the revenue records as per mutation vide M.R. No.2/2008-09 vide effected in their favour, coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure ‘G’ to the petitions) had directed Special Tahasildar to consider the request of petitioners for making the consequential changes in the record of rights, if the mutation entry stood in their favour in respect of the land/s in question. However, it has come on record that mutation order vide M.R. No.2/2008-09 was rejected and appeal in R.A. No.19/2008-09 was disposed of by Assistant Commissioner by order dated 18.05.2011 / 18.08.2011 upholding the mutations orders in M.R. Nos.8,9,13 and 15/1994-95 passed by Tahasildar (in favour of the vendor/s of respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein) and M.R. Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2000-01 (effected in the names of respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein) in respect of different portion/s of land in Sy. No.91.
21. Having regard to the aforesaid material on record, respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner has opined that Tahasildar had not afforded opportunity to the appellants therein – respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein to put forth their case and did not consider the objections filed by them before passing the order dated 07.05.2011 and the consequential order in M.R. No.29/2010-11, whereby khata in respect of the petition land was ordered to be restored in the names of Sri Gopalakrishna and petitioner Nos.5, 10 and 11. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure ‘K’ to the petitions), quashed the order dated 07.05.2011 passed by Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, in proceedings No.RRT(V)CR.36/2010-11 as well as the consequential mutation order in M.R. No.29/2010-11 passed by him. While doing so, Assistant Commissioner has directed Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, to restore the mutations in M.R. Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2000-01 in respect of the land in Sy. No.91 situate at Nellurahalli village in favour of respective appellants – respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein in terms of the final order (dated 18.05.2011/ 18.08.2011) passed by the said Authority in R.A. No.19/2008-09. The first respondent – Deputy Commissioner after considering the contentions of the parties and the documents produced by respondent Nos.4 to 9 herein, has rightly rejected the revision petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 5, 10 and 11 herein by upholding the order dated 28.01.2013 passed by Assistant Commissioner.
22. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned orders and grant the relief sought for in these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.
23. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma