IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.35055-057/2016 (LR-RES) c/w W.P.Nos.33693-695/2016 (LR-RES), W.P.Nos.35051-053/2016 (LR-RES) IN W.P.Nos.35055-057/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. K.SEETHARAMAREDDY, S/O LATE B.KEMPEGOWDA, GRAND SON OF LATE SRI APPAYYANNA , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT MELUR, SHIDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562102.
2. SMT. K.GUNARATHNA, W/O MARKANDAIAH, GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI APPAYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO.509 ANUGRAHA, 7TH CROSS, HAL 3RD STAGE, JEEVANBHIMANAGAR, BANGALORE-560075.
3. SMT.SARALAKUMARI W/O A.MUNIREDDY GRAND DAUTHER OF LATE SRI APPAYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A NO.794/1B, 1ST CROSS, NEW THIPPASANDRA, HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560075. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri Y.S.SADASHIVAREDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri DEEPAK J., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHAVANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, KANDAYABHAVANA, K G ROAD, BENGAURU-560009.
3. SRI M.B.RAMACHANDRAN S/O LATE M.B.BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD, PHILOMINA JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560046.
4. SRI M.B.GOVIDARAJU S/O LATE M.B.BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RA NO.27, NANDIDURGA ROAD, MARAPPANAPALYA, BANGALORE 560046.
5. SRI AZMATHULLA MEKHRI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS ALREADY ON RECORD AS R6.
6. SRI FAZALULLA MEKHRI, NO.21, 2ND MAIN, VASANTH NAGAR EAST, BENGALURU-560052 7. EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION (MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVT. OF INDIA) BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE 560025.
8. SMT.MARIA PHILOMENA D/O A MICHAEL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 9. SRI A.M.ANTO MICHAEL S/O A.MICHAEL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 10. SMT. A.M.SAGAYA MARIA D/O A.MICHEAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 11. SMT.A.M.TONY MARIA D/O A.MICHEAL , AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESP.8 TO 11 ARE R/AT NO.2, JAIBHARATHI NAGAR, CHINNASWAMY PILLAI ROAD, BANGALORE-560033.
12. SRI B.M.VENKATA REDDY S/O LATE B.M.MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MELRU VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562102 13. SRI B.M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY S/O LATE SRI B.M.MUNISWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BANNIKUPPA VILLAGE, NANDHI HOBLI-562101 CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT 14. SRI N.SRINIVAS S/O LATE M.NAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.97/1, WHEELERS ROAD, COX TOWN, BANGALORE-560005.
15. SRI SHIVAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE B K BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, P RAMASWAMY ROAD, J.C.NAGAR BANGALORE-560006. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
Sri H.R.ANANTHAKRISHNA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R3; Sri L.S.CHIKKANNA GOUDAR, ADV. FOR C/R4;
Sri K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV. FOR R5 & R6;
R7-R11- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.30.1.2017; Sri B.J.JANARDHANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R12 & R13; Sri K.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R14;
Sri C.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R15) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2016 PASSED BY R-2 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) CPC., IN THE ABOVE CASE, AND ETC.
IN W.P.Nos.33693-695/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. K.SEETHARAMAREDDY, S/O LATE B.KEMPEGOWDA, GRAND SON OF LATE SRI APPAYYANNA , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT MELUR, SHIDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562102.
2. SMT. K.GUNARATHNA, W/O MARKANDAIAH, GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI APPAYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO.509 ANUGRAHA, 7TH CROSS, HAL 3RD STAGE, JEEVANBHIMANAGAR, BANGALORE-560075.
3. SMT.SARALAKUMARI W/O A.MUNIREDDY GRAND DAUTHER OF LATE SRI APPAYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A NO.794/1B, 1ST CROSS, NEW THIPPASANDRA, HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560075. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri Y.S.SADASHIVAREDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri DEEPAK J., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHAVANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, KANDAYABHAVANA, K G ROAD, BENGAURU-560009.
3. SRI M.B.RAMACHANDRAN S/O LATE M.B.BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD, PHILOMINA JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560046.
4. SRI M.B.GOVIDARAJU S/O LATE M.B.BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RA NO.27, NANDIDURGA ROAD, MARAPPANAPALYA, BANGALORE 560046.
5. SRI AZMATHULLA MEKHRI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS ALREADY ON RECORD AS R6.
6. SRI FAZALULLA MEKHRI, NO.21, 2ND MAIN, VASANTH NAGAR EAST, BENGALURU-560052 7. EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION (MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVT. OF INDIA) BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE 560025.
8. SMT.MARIA PHILOMENA D/O A MICHAEL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 9. SRI A.M.ANTO MICHAEL S/O A.MICHAEL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 10. SMT. A.M.SAGAYA MARIA D/O A.MICHEAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 11. SMT.A.M.TONY MARIA D/O A.MICHEAL , AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESP.8 TO 11 ARE R/AT NO.2, JAIBHARATHI NAGAR, CHINNASWAMY PILLAI ROAD, BANGALORE-560033.
12. SRI B.M.VENKATA REDDY S/O LATE B.M.MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MELRU VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562102 13. SRI B.M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY S/O LATE SRI B.M.MUNISWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BANNIKUPPA VILLAGE, NANDHI HOBLI-562101 CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT 14. SRI N.SRINIVAS S/O LATE M.NAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.97/1, WHEELERS ROAD, COX TOWN, BANGALORE-560005.
15. SRI SHIVAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE B K BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, P RAMASWAMY ROAD, J.C.NAGAR BANGALORE-560006. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
Sri H.R.ANANTHAKRISHNA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R3; Sri L.S.CHIKKANNA GOUDAR, ADV. FOR R4;
Sri K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV. FOR R5 & R6;
Sri G.MALLIKARJUNAPPA, ADV. FOR R7, R8-R11- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.30.1.2017; Sri B.J.JANARDHANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R12 & R13; Sri K.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R14;
Sri R.NATARAJ, ADV. FOR R15) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2016 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE- Q AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) CPC., IN THE ABOVE CASE, AND ETC.
IN W.P.Nos.35051-053/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. K.SEETHARAMAREDDY, S/O LATE B.KEMPEGOWDA, GRAND SON OF LATE SRI APPAYYANNA , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT MELUR, SHIDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562102.
2. SMT. K.GUNARATHNA, W/O MARKANDAIAH, GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI APPAYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO.509 ANUGRAHA, 7TH CROSS, HAL 3RD STAGE, JEEVANBHIMANAGAR, BANGALORE-560075.
3. SMT.SARALAKUMARI W/O A.MUNIREDDY GRAND DAUTHER OF LATE SRI APPAYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A NO.794/1B, 1ST CROSS, NEW THIPPASANDRA, HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560075. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri Y.S.SADASHIVAREDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri DEEPAK J., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHAVANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, KANDAYABHAVANA, K G ROAD, BENGAURU-560009.
3. SRI M.B.RAMACHANDRAN S/O LATE M.B.BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.55, NANDIDURGA ROAD, PHILOMINA JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560046.
4. SRI M.B.GOVIDARAJU S/O LATE M.B.BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RA NO.27, NANDIDURGA ROAD, MARAPPANAPALYA, BANGALORE 560046.
SRI AZMATHULLA MEKHRI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS ALREADY ON RECORD AS R5.
5. SRI FAZALULLA MEKHRI, NO.21, 2ND MAIN, VASANTH NAGAR EAST, BENGALURU-560052 6. EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION (MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVT. OF INDIA) BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE 560025.
7. SMT.MARIA PHILOMENA D/O A MICHAEL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 8. SRI A.M.ANTO MICHAEL S/O A.MICHAEL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 9. SMT. A.M.SAGAYA MARIA D/O A.MICHEAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 10. SMT.A.M.TONY MARIA D/O A.MICHEAL , AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESP.7 TO 10 ARE R/AT NO.2, JAIBHARATHI NAGAR, CHINNASWAMY PILLAI ROAD, BANGALORE-560033.
11. SRI B.M.VENKATA REDDY S/O LATE B.M.MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MELRU VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562102 12. SRI B.M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY S/O LATE SRI B.M.MUNISWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BANNIKUPPA VILLAGE, NANDHI HOBLI-562101 CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT 13. SRI N.SRINIVAS S/O LATE M.NAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.97/1, WHEELERS ROAD, COX TOWN, BANGALORE-560005.
14. SRI SHIVAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE B K BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, P RAMASWAMY ROAD, J.C.NAGAR BANGALORE-560006. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
Sri H.R.ANANTHAKRISHNA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R3; Sri L.S.CHIKKANNA GOUDAR, ADV. FOR C/R4;
Sri K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV. FOR R5;
Sri B.J.JANARDHANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R11 & R12) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2016 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE- Q AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) CPC., IN THE ABOVE CASE, AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.09.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. In all these writ petitions, parties are common and the question that arises for consideration is also common. Hence, these writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. These writ petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North Taluk, dismissing the applications filed by the writ petitioners herein seeking to come on record as additional respondents.
3. Proceedings pending before the Land Tribunal are the result of the application filed by M.B.Ramachandran – respondent no.3 herein claiming grant of occupancy rights in respect of several lands bearing Sy. Nos.64, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 & 104 of K.G.Byadarahalli village, Civil Military Station, Bengaluru. The present petitioners claim right over the lands under one Appayanna S/o Byrappa – their grandfather. It is urged by them that the said Appayanna had purchased the properties under two sale deeds dated 17.07.1946 from Subedar A.Michael. Appayanna having died on 09.11.1974 leaving behind his two sons Kempegowda and Muniswamaiah and subsequently, Kempegowda also having died on 13.04.1993, petitioners being the children of Kempegowda asserted that they are entitled for half share in the schedule properties. It is their case that the other branch viz., that of Muniswamaiah have been already permitted to come on record in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal by virtue of their rights acquired as legal representatives of Appayanna, and therefore, the present petitioners who claim rights as the other branch viz., that of Kempegowda, are entitled to come on record.
4. These applications were resisted before the Land Tribunal by the Counsel for the respondents. The Tribunal has dismissed the applications.
5. I have heard Mr. Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, Mr. H.R.Anantha Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for respondent no.3, who is the claimant before the Land Tribunal and also the other learned Counsel Mr. Chandranath Ariga & Mr. R.Nataraj, and the learned Government Pleader.
6. The question that falls for consideration is, whether the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioners to come on record as additional respondents suffers from any apparent illegality so as to warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction?
7. The Land Tribunal has passed a detailed order. It has referred to the judgment in O.S.No.159/1953 passed by the Additional Munsiff, Civil Station, Bengaluru. That was the suit filed by one R.C.Santamaria and S.M.Chandanmull against A.Michael – vendor of Appayanna and others seeking declaration that they were the owners of Sy. Nos.103 & 104 to an extent of 2 acres & 2 acres 35 guntas, respectively, situated at Khayamgutta village in Byadarahalli. In the said suit, Appayanna under whom the present petitions claim was defendant no.2 and Smt. Lakshmamma – mother of the claimant was defendant no.3. Defendant no.2 – Appayanna had filed his written statement. In the said written statement, he had clearly stated that consideration for the sale deed executed in his favour (Appayanna) was paid by defendant no.3 – Lakshmamma W/o Byrappa – mother of respondent no.3 herein and the members of her family. He has further stated that the predecessors-in-title of Lakshmamma were in possession of the property as permanent tenants from time immemorial and that they were the real owners of the property. Appayanna has further stated that he had no interest in the property covered by the sale deed, nor was he ever in possession thereof and that it was defendants 3 to 9 being members of the joint hindu family who owned and possessed the schedule lands. This definite stand taken by Appayanna at an undisputed point, has been rightly taken into consideration by the Land Tribunal to hold that admittedly Appayanna did not claim any interest in Sy. Nos.103 & 104, and therefore, the present petitioners who claim right under Appayanna cannot improve their case and state that they have any right in the property.
8. In respect of the other lands, Mr. Anantha Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 invites the attention of the Court to the judgment dated 12.07.2012 passed in O.S.No.10186/1981 filed by one M.B.Govindaraju against M.B.Ramachandran – respondent no.3 herein and other members of the family. He contends that Kempegowda’s wife Parvathamma claimed only 1/30th share. She admitted that all the properties belonged to her father’s family. It is also demonstrated by him that in the said proceedings, Parvathamma’s granddaughter viz., daughter’s daughter Smt. G.Veena setup a Will and the said Will was held proved. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that petitioner no.2 – Gunarathna – granddaughter of late Appayanna was a party defendant no.3(a) in the said suit. He, therefore, urges that the claim of petitioners herein stating that they were the absolute owners of the properties in question was baseless and was against the decisions rendered by the Civil Court. Petitioners have no answers to the aforesaid judgments of the Civil Court.
9. In addition, it has to be noticed here that the proceedings before the Land Tribunal are initiated under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have filed applications under any of the provisions of the said Act seeking grant of occupancy rights as occupants of the land after the imams were abolished. If the applicants were the inamdhars of the lands, they ought to have filed necessary applications. Therefore, petitioners have not disclosed as to how they are claiming right over the property. Hence, in the wake of the two judgments rendered by the Civil Court referred to above and in the absence of any material to show that petitioners had filed necessary applications seeking occupancy rights as inamdhars and having regard to the golden silence maintained by the petitioners for all these years and while it was respondent no.3 and his family members who were continuously asserting their rights over the lands in question, it cannot but be held that petitioners failed to establish that they were proper and necessary parties to come on record.
10. It is also relevant to notice that some of the lands in question were acquired by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board and it was respondent no.3 herein who challenged the acquisition proceedings. Respondent no.3 claims that he has filed application seeking occupancy rights way back in the year 1957 and that having kept quiet for decades, the present petitioners have come up seeking their impleadment before the Land Tribunal. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for respondent no.3 that no revenue records have been produced to show that petitioners enjoyed any right over the lands in question. If really petitioners had any right over the property, why they kept quiet for all these years without making any claim in respect of these lands is not at all explained. Why the judgments passed by the Civil court were not challenged though they were against the interest of the petitioners herein is not explained. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioners made out any case for being impleaded as party respondents in the pending proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Their presence is wholly unnecessary and indeed would result in unnecessary protraction of the proceedings and re-opening the settled rights of the parties.
11. Hence, all these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KK