IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.36006-36007/2017 (LR-RES) BETWEEN:
M.MANJUNATH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA, R/AT.ANNESHWARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.VIGNESHWARA.U, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. RAJAMMA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.T.N.VENKATESHACHARI, R/AT.ACHARI BEEDHI, MALUR TOWN, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
4. G.N.VENUGOPAL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE NARAYANASWAMY, R/AT.GANIGARA BEEDHI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
5. SAVITHRAMMA, AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.LATE SUNDARACHARI, R/AT.AGASARABEEDHI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
6. SAROJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, W/O.LATE SHAMACHARI, 7. UMA, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.LATE SHAMACHARI, 8. BHARATHI, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.LATE SHAMACHARI, 9. SAVITHA, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O.LATE SHAMACHARI, 10. SRILATHA, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE SHAMACHARI, 11. PRAMILA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.LATE SHAMACHARI, RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 11 ARE , R/A NO.476, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH B CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040.
12. KRISHNACHARI, S/O.LATE SUNDARACHARI, AGED 40 YEARS, M/S.MEGHANA TRADERS, PAINTS AND HARDWARES, NEAR KRISHNA COLLEGE, CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU-560 091.
13. SURACHARI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE SUNDARACHARI, R/AT.MANJUNATHA STREET COMPOUND, NAGARTHARA BEEDHI, DENKANIKOTE, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-641 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.V.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI.NARASI REDDY.G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6 TO R-11; R-4 IS SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.23.6.2017 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.691 AND 915/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ANNEX-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR “ORDERS”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is an applicant before the competent authority, namely Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, where he had filed an application in Form No.7A seeking occupancy right in respect of the land bearing Sy. Nos.205 and 206/5 of Sanneamanikere village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk to an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas and 7 guntas respectively. Admittedly, the said application was filed under section 77-A pursuant to the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is said that the said application was considered and aforesaid lands were granted in his favour vide order dated 22.4.2003 in proceedings No.L.R.F.C.R:1:2/99-2000 and L.R.F(DH)874, 909/98-99.
2. The said order was subjected to challenge before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by one of the legal representatives of the original land owner B.Sundarachari, son of Basappachari, who was the respondent before the competent authority. The said appeal on the file of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal Nos.691 and 915/2008 (Revenue) came to be allowed by judgment dated 23.6.2017 wherein the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to set aside the order of grant of occupancy right in favour of the petitioner herein on the ground that on the relevant date i.e., as on 1.3.1974, the name of the petitioner was not found in column No.12 of pahani extract. Further he did not produce any document to demonstrate alleged gheni of the land in question is his favour. In that view of the matter, it was held that, he was not eligible to be considered for issue of grant of occupancy certificate in accepting the form No.7A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act filed by him. In the said proceedings, it was also observed that except the statement of the parties, there was nothing on record to substantiate that the applicant was cultivator of the land in question. In this background, the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent herein came to be allowed by judgment dated 23.6.2017.
3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents would bring to the notice of this Court that this matter is kept pending with the sole purpose of dragging on the matter when the alleged tenancy right is not considered in favour of the petitioner by the Appellate Tribunal. It is in this background, this Court called upon the parties to substantiate as to whether there is any merit for the applicant before the competent authority, who is petitioner herein. Learned AGA would bring to the notice of this Court that the requirements of either producing genichit or that the petitioner herein was in possession and cultivation of the land in question as on the relevant date of amended provisions of the Act was not demonstrated before the Appellate Tribunal and therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of the competent authority and consequently, rejected the application filed by the petitioner.
4. In this background, what this Court would observe is that, keeping this matter pending for other parties to be served is of no consequence inasmuch as majority of the members of the family of the original landlord are represented. Apart from that, what is required to be seen is, whether valid grounds are made out by the petitioner-tenant herein to quash the order dated 23.6.2017 passed in appeal Nos.691 and 915/2008 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of considered opinion that, the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim. Hence, the question of interfering with order impugned does not arise for consideration.
5. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.
6. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, I.A. No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-
CT:RG