IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.14482 OF 2010(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
M.C.RUDRAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’s a) SMT.H.D.TARADEVI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS b) M.R.KIRANKUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS BOTH OF THEM RESIDING AT NO.2/147, M.B.CHINNAPPA STREET, CHICKBALLAPUR, KOLAR DISTRICT, NOW CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI H.D.RAMASWAMY. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI L.S.CHIKKANNAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, NOW (CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT).
2. THE KARNATAKA WELFARE SOCIETY CHICKBALLAPUR, KOLAR DISTRICT, (NOW CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT), REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
*AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 03.10.2016.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 SRI NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-O BEING THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2008 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.1098 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ANNEXURE-P BEING THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.3.2010 PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NO.3 OF 2008 (IN APPEAL NO.1098 OF 2004) ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioners is that the land in question was originally granted to their ancestors in the year 1915. On a partition being effected, the land fell to the share of the petitioners’ father. Eversince then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revenue records have been entered into their names. Notwithstanding the same, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 31-7-2004 granting the land in question to the second respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.1098/2004. By the order dated 28th April, 2008 the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners filed a Review Petition No.3/2008 and by the order dated 22-3-2010 the Review Petition was also rejected. Hence, the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the both the authorities committed an error in passing the impugned orders. That once the lands have fallen to the share of the petitioners the Deputy Commissioner could not have granted the land to the respondents. That the petitioners have been in possession since the year 1915 and all the relevant documents certify such a stand. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the second respondent was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B read with 465, 468, 471, 408 and 201 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two year. There are various cases of fraud also that have been alleged against the respondent. That the registration of the society to whom the land has been granted itself is on the basis of the forged signature. Therefore, such a land could not have been granted to the 2nd respondent.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that there is no grant made in favour of the petitioners. That they have failed to prove that they are in possession of the same.
4. The respondent-State have filed their statement of objections. It is stated therein that the land in question to an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas was granted to the respondents Society and thereafter it is converted for non-agricultural purposes. The same was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which allowed the same cancelling the grant and remanded the case for fresh disposal. The Deputy Commissioner after holding due enquiry directed resumption of the land to the Government. The same was challenged by the Society before the Tribunal. The order was also challenged by the writ petitioners. Both the parties were heard together. The order of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the grant was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal. Thereafter by the order dated 31-7-2004 the land was granted to the respondent Society. Therefore, in the absence of any material to indicate that the writ petitioners were granted the land, the impugned orders cannot be found fault with.
5. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. Even in the statement of objections filed by the State it is stated that Hakdari rights were granted to the writ petitioners for growing the trees. Since there are no trees at all, the question of granting the subsequent rights to the petitioners would not arise for consideration. Therefore, a reading of the statement of objections would indicate that the petitioners were granted Hakdari rights by the State themselves as a result of which the petitioners’ ancestors were in possession of the lands since the year 1915. Whether the trees exist or not cannot constitute a ground for the Government to allot the land in question to any other person. Even if the rights have to be withdrawn by the State the same would have to be done only in the manner known to law. Thereby, by merely granting the lands to the 2nd respondent would not confer any right, title or interest to the 2nd respondent. Since the hakdari rights have admittedly been granted to the petitioners as far as back in 1915, the title and possession can be disturbed only in a manner known to law. There is no material produced or that appropriate proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for the said purpose. In the absence of disturbing the right, title and interest, all the rights having been conferred by the State themselves on the petitioners, the said lands could not have been granted to the respondent- Society.
6. Furthermore, the material on record would indicate that even if the land was granted to the respondents, the same is being contested in the name of the Society. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the alleged conversion order is not sustainable in the eye of law. That in terms of Annexure-N issued by the State, the communication dated 18-12-1987, the said conversion order also has been withdrawn. Therefore, it is apparent that none of the documents relied upon by the respondents would come to their aid. They have been granted land by the State without complying with the due process of law. The Society is defunct. It is not functioning. Under these circumstances, none of these facts have been considered by the authorities. They committed an error in rejecting the plea of the petitioners.
Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The order dated 28-4-2008 vide Annexure-O passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1098/2004 as well as the order of the 1st respondent- Deputy Commissioner dated 31-7-2004 vide Annexure-H passed in case No.LSD.SR/4 1995-96 are quashed.
Rule made absolute.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-