IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.26083-26087/2012 (LR-RES) BETWEEN 1. RANGAIAH S/O CHALUVAIAH DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1(a) SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 1(b) SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 1(c) SRI RANGASWAMY S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS PETITIONERS 1(a) TO (c) ARE RESIDENTS OF GORGIHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TQ. TUMKUR DISTRICT.
1(d) SMT BHARATHI D/O LATE RANGAIAH W/O NARASIMHARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O K. KALLAHALLI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 1(e) SMT GOWRAMMA D/O LATE RANGAIAH W/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O UDDE HOSAKERE NITTUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 1(f). SMT SHOBHA D/O LATE RANGAIAH W/O DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O CHANNANEHALLI KADABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 2. SRI DASANNA S/O DASANNA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/O KAMALAPURA KADABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 3. SRI KAREBORAIAH S/O BORAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 3(a) SMT CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE KAREBORAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3(b) SRI SANNABYRAPPA S/O LATE KAREBORAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS PETITIONERS 3(a) & 3(b) ARE RESIDENTS OF GORGIHALLI KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TQ, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3(c). SMT SUNANDA D/O LATE KAREBORAIAH W/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O MALLUR TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.
4. SRI DODDABYRAPPA @ DODDABORAIAH S/O BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O GORGIHALLI KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 5. SRI THIMMAIAH S/O DASAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 5(a) SMT CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5(b) SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS PETITIONERS 5(a) and 5(b) ARE RESIDENTS OF KODIPALYA KEREKODI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5(c) SMT LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH W/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O DASARA KALLAHALI KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TQ TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5(d). SMT MANGALAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH W/O HARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O BANDIHALLI NITTUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M B CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 1 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TAHSILDHAR, GUBBI TALUK GUBBI TUMKUR DISTRICT 3. SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O CHOWDABHAVI SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 3(a) VENKATAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGE: MAJOR 4. VENKATAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH @ VENKATESHAIAH, AGE MAJOR, 4(a) SRI VENKATESHAIAH S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAIAH AGED MAJOR RESIDENTS OF HOBALLI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5 SMT MUNIYAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDENTS OF HOBALLI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI G.BALAKRISHNASHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a) & R4(a) NAME OF R5 IS REMOVED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 02.02.2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 7.4.2014, R-4 SHOWN AS DEAD IS CORRECTED AS ALIVE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2012 ON THE FILE OF LAND TRIBUNAL, GUBBI, GUBBI TQ. TUMKUR DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-M BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Except second and fourth petitioners all other petitioners herein are the legal representatives of original applicants before the Land Tribunal, Gubbi, seeking occupancy right in respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos.156/3 and 156/4, both measuring 2 acres 3 guntas each, situated at Kadaba Amanikere, Kadaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk.
2. Admittedly, the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Gubbi, (‘the Tribunal’ for short) was initiated by 5 persons by name Rangaiah bin Chaluvaiah, Dasanna bin Dasanna, Kareboraiah bin Boraiah, Doddabyrappa bin Byrappa and Thimmaiah bin Dasappa against 3 owners, namely Munivenkatappa bin Oballi, Venkatamma bin Venkataramaiah and Muniyamma bin Venkataramaiah. It is not in dispute that in the first round of litigation, respondents 1 to 3 in said proceedings remained ex parte. Therefore, on the basis of statement recorded for and on behalf of the 5 applicants, the proceedings initiated by said applicants before the Tribunal in Nos.LRM (KD) 54, 55, 173, 174 of 1975-76 were closed in granting different portions of lands in both survey numbers, referred to supra, in their favour.
3. The said order of the Tribunal was subject matter of challenge before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP.Nos.2370/1977, 2371/1977 and 2419/1977 at the instance of land owners, which came to be allowed by order dated 6.3.1979 in remanding the matter back to the Tribunal. Pursuant to such remand, since the Tribunal did not expedite the matter pending before it, the land owners approached this Court again in WP.No.36510/1993, which came to be allowed by order dated 5.11.1993 in directing the Tribunal to dispose of the matter pending before it within six months. It is pursuant to this order dated 5.11.1993, the proceedings before the Tribunal in No.LRM (KD) 54, 55, 173, 174/1975-76 were concluded by order dated 11.4.2012 in dismissing the said proceedings, which is at Annexure-M.
Against this order of the Tribunal, these writ petitions are filed by the legal representatives of original applicants 1, 3 and 5 and the original applicants 2 and 4.
4. Heard Sri.Chandrachood, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3(a) and 4(a) and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Perused the order impugned. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that the first round of litigation between the original applicants and land owners was decided ex parte in as much as the land owners who were respondents before the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation were not represented and no evidence was recorded on their behalf in said proceedings. However, it is only based on the oral statements recorded for and on behalf of the original applicants the entire proceedings were closed in granting occupancy right in favour of the applicants to certain extent of lands in Sy.Nos.156/3 and 156/4 of Amanikere village.
5. The earlier order of grant dated 11.11.1976 was the subject matter of WP.Nos.2370/1977, 2373/1977 and 2419/1977, which came to be allowed on 6.3.1979 wherein the order dated 11.11.1976 in granting occupancy right in favour of the applicants was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. It is seen that though there was an order of remand in 1979, the grievance of the land owners was that the Tribunal did not take up the matter for reconsideration. In this background, the landowners filed one more writ petition in WP.No.36510/1993 against the Land Tribunal alone in seeking direction to it to dispose of the applications pending before it at the earliest, which came to be disposed of by order dated 5.11.1993 in directing the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within six months. It is pursuant to said order the matter appears to have been speeded up.
6. However, it is seen that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal 3 original applicants have died but the date of their death is not brought to the notice of the Tribunal initially. Subsequently, an application to bring the legal representatives of one of the deceased applicants was filed some where around 2002 and the same was allowed on 30.10.2002 in permitting the legal representatives of 5th applicant to come on record subject to production of death certificate. It is seen that though said application was allowed, none of the applicants or the legal representatives of deceased 5th applicant appeared before the Tribunal and adduced evidence. It is only 2nd applicant - Dasanna who gave his statement before the Tribunal i.e., on 6.4.1999 i.e., much earlier to legal representatives of one of the deceased applicants coming on record.
7. It is also seen that in the said proceedings a Mahazar is drawn where there is an indication that some portion is cultivated by the land owners and some portion is cultivated by the tenants. It is seen that though there is sufficient confusion on record, nothing is clearly stated. First and foremost thing which is required to be established by the tenants is that they were tenants of the lands as on the cut of date under the amended provisions of the Land Revenue Act 1964, for which they are seeking occupancy right. However, they have failed to produce either the lease agreement of lands or the document which would indicate the arrangement of Wara i.e., arrangement of crop sharing basis or on what basis the land which is said to be taken by them on lease. However, no document of worth is forthcoming on record to show that there is tenancy right in favour of applicants 1 to 5 before the Tribunal.
8. In fact, the evidence of Dasanna – 2nd applicant before the Tribunal is also oral evidence in contending that he is cultivating all the lands along with his brother. Though Dasanna has made such statement, it is seen that his brother did not join him in filing the application seeking grant of occupancy right and it is filed only by Dasanna. In this background, the Tribunal has felt that the parties have absolutely no interest in demonstrating their leasehold right in the lands for which they have filed application in Form No.7. Hence, in the absence of any document coming forth in support of their prayer, only on the basis of oral statement of Dasanna and half-hearted mahazar drawn by the Revenue Inspector, the Tribunal was not inclined to consider the prayer of the applicants before it in as much as on the earlier occasion when the tenancy right was conferred by order dated 11.11.1976 only on the basis of the statement of the applicants, the same was granted. Hence, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the land owners. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has felt that no grounds are made out to consider the applications of the original applicants before it and dismissed the same.
9. On giving careful consideration to the grounds urged and contended in this proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the order dated 11.4.2012 in proceedings Nos.LRM (KD) 54, 55, 173, 174 of 1975-76 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Gubbi.
Hence, the order impugned does not call for interference in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-