Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.41311/2019 (LR) BETWEEN:
SHRI. BASAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPAP AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT THALI ROAD ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 562 106.
(BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LEGAL CELL AND PREVENTION OF UAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION ANEKAL LAND TRIBUNAL D.C. OFFICE, K.G. ROAD BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 009.
3 . THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL – 562 106.
4 . JAMEERULLA SHARIEF SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS ...PETITIONER 4(a). ASHMATH UNNISA W/O LATE JAMEERULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
4(b). SMT. SAIRABANU D/O LATE JAMEERULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
4(c). SAMEENABANU D/O LATE JAMEERULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
4(d). SRI. PARVEEZ ULLA SHARIEF S/O LATE JAMEERULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
4(e). SRI. INAYATH ULLA SHARIEF S/O LATE JAMEERULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
4(f). SRI. SHAJIYA BANU D/O LATE JAMEERULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
4(g). SADRULLA SHARIEF W/O LATE JAMEERULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT PALEGARA BEEDHI NO.118, WARD NO.19, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
NO NOTICE ISSUED TO R-4(a) TO R-4(g) V/O DATED:24.10.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.467/2013 ON 10.04.2019 ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DECEASED R- JAMEERULIA SHARIFF AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER IN LRF.7A/139/98-99 GRANTING OCCUPNACY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.551 MEASURING 20 GUNTAS OF ANEKAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.V.Viswanath Setty, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. No notice is issued to respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(g), since petition is dismissed at the threshold for the reasons indicated herein below.
2. Writ petitioner herein filed an application in Form No.7A dated 28.12.1998 for grant of land bearing Sy.No.551 of Anekal Village to an extent of 20 guntas. Said application came to be registered for initiating proceedings under Section 77A of Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1977. Second respondent by order dated 26.07.2005 – Annexure-D allowed the application and ordered for grant of land sought for by petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(g) herein filed an appeal before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revenue Appeal No.467/2013 contending interalia that property bearing Sy.No.551 of Anekal Village totally measured 26 guntas and one Sri.Gouse Sharief who was the owner of said property had executed a registered Will dated 06.02.1979 bequeathing the property in their favour and on demise of Gouse Sharief, revenue records came to be mutated in the name of the beneficiary under Will. During lifetime of said Sri.Jameerulla Sharief, he had sold 4 guntas of land out of 26 guntas of land in favour of writ petitioner. However, writ petitioner fraudulently misrepresented before Revenue Authority and got the khatha mutated in his name in M.R.No.39/1993-94 to an extent of area measuring 6 guntas and also filed Form No.7A for grant of 20 guntas of land contending that he is in occupation of said land. Said appeal came to be adjudicated by Appellate Tribunal and it has been noticed by the Appellate Tribunal that none of the ingredients of Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ( for short ‘Act’), was attracted to the facts on hand namely, tribunal found that for grant of land under Section 77A an applicant, who files an application in Form No.7A has to fulfill the ingredients prescribed thereunder namely;
(1) land should have vested with the State on the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974 as indicated under Section 44;
(2) tenants should have cultivated the said land as on the appointed date; and, (3) said tenant should not have filed an application in Form No.7 or had failed to file Form No.7 and as such Form No.7A was being filed.
In this background, Tribunal has noticed that Form No.7A, which was filed by the petitioner was on 28.12.1998 and in Column No.8 of the said form he has specifically pleaded that he was cultivating the said land from past 10 years. As such Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that petitioner cannot retrace his steps and taken a stand contrary to what has been stated in the application.
4. However, at this juncture, it would be apt and appropriate to note the contentions raised by Sri.Viswanath Setty, learned counsel appearing for petitioner namely petitioner being uneducated and illiterate person, had requested for filling up of Form No.7A and without his knowledge, consent, an entry had been made in Column No.8 and this fact had been noticed by the Assistant Commissioner namely, plea put forward by the petitioner before Assistant Commissioner, which was to the effect that petitioner was tilling the land from past 30 to 40 years prior to date of filing of application and as such Assistant Commissioner had accepted said plea, which was also required to be accepted by the Tribunal, is an argument though looks attractive cannot be accepted for reasons more than one. Firstly, in the application filed by petitioner in Form No.7A a categorical statement has been made with regard to date from which he has been cultivating the land; secondly, petitioner had failed to establish even before Assistant Commissioner that land in question had stood vested with the State by producing positive material in this regard; thirdly, there was no records whatsoever including RTC extracts, which depicted that as on appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974 land in question was cultivated by the petitioner. For these cumulative reasons Tribunal has rightly held that application of petitioner was not required to be entertained by the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed by Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the application filed by petitioner in Form No.7A.
5. Findings recorded by Tribunal at paragraphs 11 to 13, which has been condensed hereinabove, does not suffer from any defect or infirmity calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold without notice being issued to respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(g).
For reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
Next >