IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.2690/2012(LR-SEC48) BETWEEN N BHADRAIAH S/O NANJUNDA REDDY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SRI B VEERAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE BHADRAIAH, R/AT YEMARE VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.PRAKASH FOR SRI G MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATES) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 REPTD. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL- REPTD. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. SRI Y NAGARAJ S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.100, SUSHEELA ROAD MAVALLI BANGALORE-560004 4. SMT JALAJAKSHI W/O KRISHNA REDDY R./AT NO.56, 1ST CROSS LAKKASANDRA BANGALORE-560030 5. SMT Y SUSHEELA W/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY R/AT NO.100/2, SUSHEELA ROAD MAVALLI BANGALORE-560004 6. SMT Y NIRMALA KUMARI D/O CHANDRASHEKAR R/AT NO.100/2, SUSHEELA ROAD MAVALLI BANGALORE-560004 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI N.S.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI P.N.RAJESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.LRF/NC 380/79-80 DT 5.9.2011 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY NO.79/2 MEASURING O3 ACRES 35 GUNTAS, SY NO.96/1 MEASURING 02 ACRES 05 GUNTAS, SY NO.108/2 MEASURING 01 ACRE 28 GUNTAS ALL ARE SITUATED AT THIGALA CHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, SO ALSO IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY NO.205 MEASURING 01 ACRE 22 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WP AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The applicant in case No.LRF.NC.380/1979-80 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, has come up in this petition impugning the order dated 05.09.2011 in rejecting his application in Form No.7 filed under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’) in respect of the lands measuring to an extent of: 03 Acres 35 guntas in Sy. No.79/2, 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.96/1, 01 Acre 28 guntas in Sy. No.108/2 situate at Thigalachowdadenahalli village and land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.205 situate at Dommasandra village, Sarjapura hobli, Anekal Taluk. The impugned order is passed in the third round of litigation before the Land Tribunal.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
2.1 The original petitioner, Sri N. Bhadraiah, son of Nanjunda Reddy, filed application in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, on 29.06.1979 (Annexure ‘C’ to the petition) seeking conferment of occupancy right in respect of the lands measuring to an extent of: 03 Acres 25 guntas in Sy. No.79/2; 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.96; 01 Acre 28 guntas in Sy No.108 situate in Thigalachowdadenahalli village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. In the said application, he sought for occupancy right in respect of one another land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.205 situate at Dommasandra village, Sarjapura hobli, Anekal Taluk. The aforesaid lands are the subject matter of this writ petition. The applicant also sought for occupancy rights in respect of four items of lands situate in Yamare village and another land in Dommasandra village, which are not relevant to this petition. In the said application, in the column meant for furnishing the particulars of owner, the name of the owner was shown as one ‘Sri Y. Nagaraja’, who is respondent No.3 in this proceedings.
2.2 The said application in Form No.7, which was registered in proceedings No.LRF.NC.380/79-80, was contested and thereafter, the Land Tribunal considering the material on record, conferred occupancy rights in respect of four items of land i.e., land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 35 guntas in Sy. No.79/2, 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.96/1, 01 Acre 28 guntas in Sy. No.108/2 of Thigalachowdadenahalli vilalge and 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.205 of Dommasandra village in favour of Sri N. Bhadraiah by its order dated 09.06.1981. The said order was the subject matter of challenge by Smt. Y. Jalajakshi (respondent No.4 herein), Smt. Y. Susheela (respondent No.5 herein) and Smt. Y. Nirmala Kumari (respondent No.6 herein), daughters of Sri D. Yellappa and sisters of respondent No.3 herein – Sri Y. Nagaraj in W.P. No.11401/1981 wherein it was contended that the application in Form No.7 filed by Sri N.Bhadraiah was not maintainable for two reasons, firstly, the said Sri N. Bhadraiah is none other than the father-in-law of their brother, Sri Y. Nagaraj, and hence, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Sri Y. Nagaraj and Sri N. Bhadraiah and secondly, on the premise that except the land in Sy. No.79/2, which stood in the name of their brother, Sri Y. Nagaraj, the remaining lands were standing in the name of their father, Sri D. Yellappa, however, in Form No.7 filed by Sri Bhadraiah / Sri Bhadraiah Reddy (respondent No.3 therein), except the name of their brother, Sri Y. Nagaraj, their names were not shown as land owners and the application in Form No.7 filed by Sri N. Bhadraiah was incomplete.
2.3 The said writ petition in W.P. No.11401/1981, was allowed by order dated 28.05.1985 by quashing the order of the Land Tribunal dated 09.06.1981 (mentioned as 09.06.1980 in the operative portion of the order dated 28.05.1985) passed in proceedings No. LRF.NC.380/1979-80 and remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal, Anekal, for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties concerned.
2.4 In the second round of litigation, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 29.10.1988 (Annexure ‘E’ to the petition) again proceeded to allow the application filed by Sri N. Bhadraiah in proceedings in LRF.NC.380/79-80 in granting occupancy rights in his favour in respect of 04 items of land i.e., land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 30 guntas in Sy. No.79/2, 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.96/1 and 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.108/2 situate at Thigalachowdadenahalli village and 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.205 situate at Dommasandra village.
2.5 The said order of the Land Tribunal dated 29.10.1988 was the subject matter of challenge in writ petition in W.P. No.20067/1991 filed by Smt. Y. Susheela (respondent No.5 herein) and Smt. Y. Nirmala Kumari (respondent No.6 herein) and W.P. No.20068/1991 preferred by Smt. Y. Jalajakshi. The said petitions also came to be allowed by order dated 20.01.1994 on the premise that the Land Tribunal had not afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioners therein to put forth their case before it and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
2.6 It is after the second remand, the Land Tribunal took up the application of Sri N. Bhadraiah for consideration in the proceedings before it for the third time and passed the impugned order dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure ‘F’ to the petition) rejecting his claim application. While doing so, the Land Tribunal directed the Special Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk, to restore the entries in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question in the name of Sri D. Yellappa as they stood before and / or as were existing both in column Nos.9 and 12(2) of the pahanis / RTCs., and since Sri D. Yellappa had expired, the khata of the lands in question was directed to be made by inheritance as well as partition according to the decision of the Civil Court in the individual names of the respondents 1 to 4 as may be warranted in accordance with law. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in this proceedings by the legal representative of the original tenant, Sri N. Bhadraiah, who is said to have died during the interregnum period between the date of passing of the impugned order and the date of filing of this petition.
3. The order impugned is challenged by the son of Sri N. Bhadraiah on various grounds, which are that the Land Tribunal while considering the objections raised by respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein has not looked into the fact that even prior to the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974, his father, Sri N. Bhadraiah, was in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 30 guntas in Sy. No.79/2 where in the column meant for cultivator, the name of ‘Sri N. Bhadraiah’ / ‘Bhadraiah Reddy’ is shown and he was cultivating the land as such on the basis of ‘wara’ i.e., sharing of the income generated from the cultivation of the said land. Therefore, the same could not have been ignored by the Land Tribunal merely on the ground that the original petitioner happened to be the father-in-law of the landlord, Sri Y. Nagaraj (respondent No.3 herein).
4. It is further contended that with reference to three other items i.e., land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.96/1 and 01 Acre 28 guntas in Sy. No.108/2 of Thigalachowdadenahalli village and land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.205 of Dommasandra village are concerned, though the extracts of RTC., does not disclose the applicant as the cultivator of the said lands, the independent evidence, which is adduced before the Land Tribunal, would clearly indicate that the claimant, Sri N. Bhadraiah, was in possession and cultivation of the said lands, which fact has been ignored by the Land Tribunal and it was misled to believe that the application filed by Sri N. Bhadraiah was at the instance of his son-in-law, Sri Y. Nagaraj, who is respondent No.3 in this proceedings.
5. The finding of the Land Tribunal that the entire proceedings before it is make-believe proceedings to support the case of Sri Y. Nagaraj, is erroneous. According to the petitioner, though sufficient opportunity was given by the Land Tribunal to respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein, they have failed to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and in spite of that, the Land Tribunal has proceeded to accept the contention of the said respondents and rejected the claim of the petitioner herein with reference to other three lands, which is required to be reconsidered in this petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel, Sri Prakash M., appearing for the petitioner, who is the son of the original applicant before the Land Tribunal, learned counsel, Sri P.N. Rajeshwara, for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Sri N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri B.S. Budihal, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material on record.
7. On giving careful consideration to the order impugned, it is clearly seen that as on 29.06.1979, when the application in Form No.7 was filed by Sri N. Bhadraiah pursuant to Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the material which was available on record, would indicate that one of the items in the application is land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 25 guntas in Sy. No.79/2 situate at Thigalachowdadenahalli village, which land was standing in the name of Sri Y. Nagaraj and he is shown as registered owner of the said land. The RTC., which was produced by Sri N. Bhadraiah, the applicant, would indicate that he was tenant of the said land from the year 1969-70 till the date (29.06.1979) of filing of the application in Form No.7.
In the said proceedings, it was also contended by the original petitioner – Sri N. Bhadraiah that Sri Yellappa, the father of respondent No.3, an employee of Town Municipal Council, during that period could not have personally cultivated the lands in Sy. Nos.79/2, 96/1 and 108/2 situate in Thigalachowdadena village, and Sy. No.205 of Dommasandra Village.
8. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the said land was under the cultivation of Sri N. Bhadraiah should be considered in the light of documentary evidence, which is in the form of RTC., in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 30 guntas in Sy. No.79/2 situate at Thigalachowdadenahalli village. In respect of the other three lands, the original petitioner had taken up the contention that the Land Tribunal vide its earlier order dated 29.10.1988, had conferred occupancy rights in respect of the said lands in favour of Sri Bhadraiah relying upon the evidence of witnesses, Sri Ramaswamy Reddy, Sri Venkataswamy Reddy and Sri N. Ramaiha, which evidence has not been effectively proved to be unacceptable or erroneous by respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein by leading independent evidence. According to him, though sufficient opportunity was given to respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein, they have not utilized the same in adducing evidence. Therefore, the impugned order of the Land Tribunal was required to be set aside.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent Nos.4 to 6 would demonstrate before this Court that the land measuring to an extent of: 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.96/1; 01 Acre 28 guntas in Sy. No.108/2 of Thigalachowdadenahalli village and land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.205 of Dommasandra village, are lands which stood in the name of Sri D. Yellappa, the father of respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein. According to them, as on the date when the application in Form No.7 was filed by the original petitioner, Sri N.Bhadraiah, Sri D. Yellappa had died (on 27.03.1978) leaving him surviving respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein as his legal heirs. Therefore, the applicant, Sri N. Bhadraiah, ought to have shown the names of respondent Nos.4 to 6 also along with respondent No.3 in the application in Form No.7 filed by him on 29.06.1979. They would also contend that prior to filing of the application in Form No.7 by Sri N. Bhadraiah, they had filed a suit in O.S. No.286/1979 (new No.4528/1990) on the file of learned Civil Judge, Anekal, for the relief of partition against respondent No.3 herein. It is the said suit which triggered the filing of the application in Form No.7 by the applicant, Sri N. Bhadraiah, who is none other than the father-in-law of respondent No.3, Sri Y. Nagaraj. It is stated that Sri Y. Nagaraj is one of the defendants in the original suit for partition, where the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 35 guntas in Sy. No.79/2, which was standing in the name of Sri Y.Nagaraj, was also shown as the joint family property in which respondent No.4 herein had sought for ¼th share in the said property. Therefore, it is contended that Sri N. Bhadraiah had filed application in Form No.7 with an ulterior motive and not with the genuine intention of establishing his so-called tenancy right.
10. Learned counsel, Sri N.S. Bhat, appearing for respondent No.3 would try to assert that respondent No.3 being an employee of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had acquired the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 30 / 35 guntas in Sy. No.79/2 under registered sale deed which was executed in his favour on 29.04.1961 (sale deed subsequently rectified in 1967) and from that date, he continued in possession and enjoyment of the said land independently and subsequently, he has given the said land for cultivation to his own father-in-law, Sri N. Bhadraiah / Bhadraiah Reddy, and having given the said land to his father- in-law, he has permitted him to be shown as tenant of the said land, which is reflected in the extracts of RTC., for the year 1969-70 onwards. Therefore, with reference to the said land in Sy. No.79/2 is concerned, learned counsel tried to assert that the said land is not the property of Sri Yellappa, the father of respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein, and it is the property of respondent No.3 - Sri Y. Nagaraj and that respondent No.3 has no objection for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of the said land in favour of his father-in-law.
11. After giving careful consideration to the material available on record and also the arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner and other respondents, it is clearly seen that the orders, which were passed by the Land Tribunal on earlier two occasions i.e., 09.06.1981 and 29.10.1988 are wrong inasmuch as they have already been set aside by coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier two rounds of litigations (W.P. No.11401/1981 disposed of on 28.05.1985 and W. P. Nos.20067/1991 connected with 20068/1991 disposed of on 20.01.1994 respectively), which is accepted by this Court also.
12. When this matter is remanded back to the Land Tribunal, it is seen that the Land Tribunal has committed the very same mistake again i.e., it has not properly appreciated the material available on record from the point of the provisions of the amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, particularly, with reference to recognizing the right of the tenant under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Admittedly, the registered owner of the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 30 guntas / 35 guntas in Sy. No.79/2 as on the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974 is Sri Y. Nagaraj. The question as to whether Sri Y. Nagaraj is the absolute owner of the said property or whether it is the property of the joint family of himself and his father, Sri D. Yellappa, could not have been the subject matter of consideration before the Land Tribunal, which was seized of the application filed by the original petitioner, Sri N. Bhadraiah, in Form No.7. What was required to be seen is whether the name of the landlord was shown in the column meant for showing the name of the landlord in Form No.7 and whether the applicant was in a position to establish his tenancy right with reference to the lands in respect of which he was seeking occupancy rights.
13. Now coming to Form No.7 filed by Sri N. Bhadraiah, it is seen that though the application seeking occupancy right is in respect of 04 items of land, the person shown as owner is only Sri Y. Nagaraj in whose name only the land bearing Sy.No.79/2 was standing. Therefore, the Land Tribunal could have considered only that land for conferment of occupancy rights in favour of the applicant - Sri N. Bhadraiah. However, it is seen that subsequently for the first time on 09.06.1981, respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein were arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to 5 before the Land Tribunal. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that geni chit was given to Sri N. Bhadraiah by Sri D. Yellappa, the father of respondent Nos.4 to 6, to cultivate the lands (extents as stated in Form No.7) bearing Sy. Nos.96/1 and 108/2 of Thigalachowdadenahalli village as well as Sy. No.205 of Dommasandra village coming under Sarjapura hobli, Anekal. In the absence of documentary evidence to show that Sri N. Bhadraiah was tenant under Sri Y. Nagaraj, the Land Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights in respect of four items of lands i.e., land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 35 guntas in Sy. No.79/2, 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.96/1, 01 Acre 28 guntas in Sy. No.108/2 and 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.205.
14. The said order was rightly set aside by a coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 28.05.1985 passed in W.P. No.11401/1981. Thereafter, the matter was remanded back to the land Tribunal, where for the second time, the same order was reiterated by the Land Tribunal by order dated 29.10.1988, which was set aside by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.20067/1991 (preferred by respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein) connected with W.P. No.20068/1991 preferred by respondent No.4 herein, which also came to be allowed by order dated 20.01.1994 and sent back to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration.
15. In the third round of litigation, the Land Tribunal has once again committed very same error in not considering the tenancy claim of the original petitioner, Sri N. Bhadraiah, in respect of the land in Sy. No.79/2. Admittedly, the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 35 guntas / 30 guntas in Sy. No.79/2 was the property belonging to respondent No.3, Sri Y. Nagaraj, as could be seen from the sale deed, which was registered in his favour on 29.04.1961 (sale deed subsequently rectified in 1967). From 29.04.1961 to the date of filing of the application in Form No.7 by Sri N. Bhadraiah on 29.06.1979, the same continued in his name and the said land is shown to be in cultivation under Sri N. Bhadraiah. Though it is contended by contesting respondent Nos.4 to 6 that Sri N. Bhadraiah is the father-in-law of Sri Y. Nagaraj and because of that, he has filed an application seeking occupancy right, same cannot be accepted for the reason that as on 01.06.1979, nobody had any inclination that on the same day, the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, would come into force and that a preparatory step was required to be taken to show somebody other than Sri Y. Nagaraj as cultivator of the said land. Admittedly, even prior to the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which came into effect from 01.03.1974, the name of Sri N. Bhadraiah is reflected as ‘tenant’ in the extract of RTC., continuously from 1969-70 insofar as the land bearing Sy. No.79/2 measuring 03 Acres 30 / 35 guntas.
16. In that view of the matter, this Court would observe that a serious error has been committed by the Land Tribunal in rejecting the tenancy claim of Sri N. Bhadraiah in respect of land bearing Sy. No.79/2 (extent of which is 03 Acres 25 guntas as per Form No.7 and 03 Acres 30 guntas as per RTC., extracts). Merely because there is family relationship between the tenant – Sri N. Bhdraiah and landlord – Sri Y. Nagaraj, it does not take away protection, which was provided to a tenant under Section 48 of the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, unless it is shown that the same is with ulterior motive. In the instant case, as stated supra, five years before the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the applicant – Sri N.Bhadraiah was shown as tenant of the said property. Therefore, it is clear that the Land Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application of the original petitioner insofar as the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 35 guntas (03 Acres 25 guntas as per Form No.7) in Sy. No.79/2 of Thigalachowdadenahalli is concerned.
17. Now, coming to the other lands measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.96/1 and 01 Acre 28 guntas in Sy. No.108/2 of Thigalachowdadhenahalli village and land measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.205 of Dommasandra village, admittedly, those lands were lands which stood in the name of Sri D. Yellappa, the father of respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein. Admittedly, there is no document on record to demonstrate that Sri D.Yellappa during his lifetime had issued geni chit to the original petitioner, Sri N. Bhadraiah, to cultivate the aforesaid lands either on wara basis or any other terms said to be agreed between the original owner, Sri D. Yellappa and the applicant - Sri N. Bhadraiah. In the absence of the same, on the basis of the evidence of self-styled witnesses in the said proceedings, the Land Tribunal ought not to have proceeded with the proceedings in LRF.NC.380/79-80 on earlier occasion i.e., by order dated 29.10.1988 to confer occupancy rights in respect of the said lands in favour of the applicant - Sri N. Bhadraiah. However, the Land Tribunal while passing the impugned order has not committed the mistake, which was committed by it in the earlier rounds of litigation. It has observed that the evidence of witnesses disclosed that the aforesaid lands were under the cultivation of Sri D. Yellappa and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Sri D. Yellappa and Sri N. Bhadraiah. Consequently, the Land Tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the original petitioner, Sri N. Bhadraiah, for issuance of occupancy rights in respect of the lands bearing Sy. Nos.96/1 and 108/2 of Thigalachowdadenahalli and Sy. No.205 of Dommasandra.
18. With such observations, this writ petition is allowed in part by setting aside the order dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure ‘F’ to the petition) passed by the Land Tribunal insofar as it pertains to the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 25 guntas / 30 guntas / 35 guntas in Sy. No.79/2 situate at Thigalachowdadenahalli village, Sarjapura hobli, Anekal. The impugned order insofar as it pertains to rejection of the claim of the original petitioner – Sri N. Bhadraiah for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.96/1, 01 Acre 28 guntas in Sy. No.108/2 situate at Thigalachowdadenahalli village and an extent 0f 01 Acre 22 guntas in Sy. No.205 situate at Dommasandra village, is upheld in this proceedings.
In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2012 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks.
Sd/- JUDGE sma