IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.22788/2016(LR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LILAVATHI AGED 85 YEARS (SINCE DEAD BY LRS) (NOTE: THE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 10 ARE LRS OF DECEASED ALREADY ONRECORD) 2. SMT. KAMALAKSHA NAYAK AGED 67 YEARS.
3. SRI. SADASHIVA NAYAK AGED 64 YEARS.
4. SMT. SUSHILA AGED 61 YEARS.
5. SRI. ANAND NAYAK AGED 58 YEARS.
6. SRI. DAMODARA NAYAK AGED 55 YEARS.
7. SRI. UPENDRA NAYAK AGED 51 YEARS.
8. SRI. RAJEEVI AGED 49 YEARS.
9. SMT. SUMITHRA AGED 47 YEARS.
10. SMT. INDIRA AGED 45 YEARS. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUIDLING BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SULLIA TALUK, D.K. - 574 239 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. THE TAHSILDAR SULLIA TALUK D.K.-574 239.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRI., HCGP FOR R-1 TO 3 SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA., ADVOCATE R-4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTTHE R-3/TAHASILDAR, SULLIA TQ., TO ISSUE FORM NO.10 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, INSOFAR AS THE GRANT OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS, AS PER THE ORDER DATED.14.10.1976 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, SULLIA IN LRY. NO.1603/1974-75 EXCEPT 30 CENTS IN SY.NO.78/4 AS PER ANNX-B AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER I have heard the arguments of Sri. Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners, Smt. Savithri, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. K. Chandranath Ariga, learned Advocate appearing for proposed respondent No.4 (for applicant in I.A.No.1/2017). Perused the records.
2. Petitioner herein has sought for a writ of mandamus to respondent No.3 namely, to direct respondent No.3 to issue Form No.10 pursuant to order dated 14.10.1976 passed by Land Tribunal in LRY No.1603/1974-75. Prayer sought for in the writ petition reads:
“Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, Sullia Taluk, to issue Form No.10 in favour of the petitioner, insofar as the grant of occupancy rights, as per the order dated 14.10.1976 passed by the Land Tribunal, Sullia, in LRY No.1603/1974-75 except 30 cents in Sy.No.78/4 as per Annexure-B and grant such other relief, in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. Application -I.A.No.1/2017 has been filed by the applicant (Sri. Ananda Prabhu) to come on record as 4th respondent by invoking Order I Rule 10 of CPC.
4. As could be seen from the prayer made by petitioners as extracted herein above disclosing petitioners are seeking for issuance of Form No.10 insofar as Sy.No.78/4 an extent of 22 cents apart from seeking for grant of Form No.10 in respect of other survey numbers as morefully described in the schedule to the petition. However, applicant who is claiming right over survey number as sought for getting himself impleaded as contending he is necessary and proper party to the proceedings.
5. Petitioners as well as applicant were rival claimants for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.78/4. Petitioners had sought for grant of occupancy rights to the entire extent namely, 52 cents, whereas impleading applicant sought for grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 30 cents in same survey number. The claim of applicant as well as petitioners was adjudicated and by order dated 14.10.1976 Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of petitioners to an extent of 22 cents in Sy.No.78/4 and in respect of same survey number an extent of 30 cents came to be granted in favour of applicant.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of granting occupancy rights in favour of impleading applicant, petitioners herein had approached this Court in W.P.No.2726/2006 (LR), which came to be dismissed by order dated 05.04.1970 and an appeal filed against said order in W.A.No.4043/2017 (LR) also came to be dismissed on 31.05.2017. It is now stated that petitioners have pursued their grievance before the Hon’ble Apex Court and matter is pending. This is not in dispute.
7. In this factual scenario, petitioners herein have sought for grant of Form No.10 in respect of 22 cents apart from seeking for the same Form No.10 being issued in respect of other survey number over which they have been granted occupancy rights. Claim of the petitioners for grant of Form No.10 in this writ petition relates to 22 cents only i.e., as per order dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure-C).
8. A plain reading of order of land tribunal dated.19.01.2016 (Annexure-C) would disclose that eastern portion of Sy.No.78/4 measuring 22 cents had been granted in favour of petitioners. As such, impleading applicant cannot have any grievance insofar as said 22 cents is concerned and their claim was only to an extent of 30 cents i.e., western portion of Sy.No.78/4. In the event of applicant succeeding before Hon’ble Apex Court in the pending civil appeal, he would consequently be entitled to seek for issuance of Form No.10 in respect of Sy.No.78/4 measuring 30 cents on western portion of said survey number.
However, for the present, there would be no impediment for grant of issuance of Form No.10 in respect of Sy.No.78/4 measuring 22 cents of eastern portion in favour of petitioners. As such, I.A.No.1/2017 filed by proposed respondent would not arise in the light of observation and clarification made hereinabove. Accordingly, subject to above observations I.A.No.1/17 stands disposed of.
9. Insofar as grant of Form No.10 in respect of properties described in the schedule of the petition is concerned, there cannot be any impediment for authorities to issue Form No.10, insofar as it relates to 22 guntas in favour of petitioners as per order passed by the Land Tribunal order dated 14.10.1976 (Annexure-A) and order dated 19.01.2006 (Annexure-C) is concerned and same deserves to be granted.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
(2) Writ of Mandamus is issued to respondent No.3 to issue Form No.10 in favour of petitioner as per order dated 14.10.1976 passed by Land Tribunal in LRY No.1603/1974-75 as described in the schedule to petition except 30 cents in Sy.No.78/4 (western portion) Ordered accordingly.
Learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.
SD/- JUDGE RU