IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ W.P. NO.50704/2019 (KLGP) BETWEEN:
SRI. ARAVINDA KUMAR S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT PURADAKOPPALU VILLAGE, DUDDA VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK MANDYA -571 401.
(BY SMT. ANUSHA NANDISH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
3. THE TASHILDAR MANDYA TALUK MANDYA – 571 401.
...PETITIONER 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST(RURAL), NEAR CARMEL CONVENT, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401. (BY SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED:15.04.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURTS AT BENGALURU IN LGC(T) NO.1626/2018 ARISING OUT OF O.S.NO.101/2015 THAT WAS PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA AND THEREAFTER TRANSFERRED TO THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNX-A) THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioner herein instituted a suit O.S.No.101/2015 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, seeking relief of perpetual injunction against respondents herein. Said suit came to be transferred by Civil Court to the Court constituted under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court and on such transfer it came to be renumbered as LGC (T) No.1626/2018. On notice being issued to petitioner/plaintiff, appeared through learned Advocates and respondents appeared through public prosecutor. Petitioner/plaintiff got himself examined and he had also produced the documents. At the request of learned Government Advocate matter came to be adjourned for cross examination of plaintiff. However, for reasons best known, plaintiff did not appear before trial court and never offered himself for cross examination. Even after transfer of suit to Special Court, plaintiff never turned up for cross examination and learned Advocate appearing for plaintiff had also remained absent. Hence, Special Court by impugned judgment dated 15.04.2018 dismissed the suit on the ground that there is no evidence available on record to believe the statement made by plaintiff, particularly when plaintiff had not tendered himself for cross examination.
3. It is the contention of Smt.Anusha Nandish, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that order of transfer from Civil Court to Special Court itself was erroneous, since it is the specific case of plaintiff that he was allotted land in question namely suit schedule property by an order of grant and as such plaintiff would not fall within the definition of Section 2(e) “Land Grabbing”. Hence, she would pray for judgment of Special Court being set aside and matter being remitted back to Civil Court and prays for suitable orders being passed.
4. Per contra, Sri.Sreenidhi, learned AGA appearing for respondents-State would submit that land in question though granted to plaintiff/petitioner, same being a forest land, it could not have been granted in favour of plaintiff and as such Special Court has rightly dismissed the suit. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of judgment passed by the Special Court it requires to be noticed at the outset that very issue of transfer of suit from Civil Court to Special Court was not called for, that too by way of administrative order passed by District Judge. It is for this reason, Special Court itself has observed to the following effect:
“There cannot be any such administrative order for transfer of all the suits as it is not contemplated under Section 20 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011.”
6. Having observed as noticed hereinabove Special Court has proceeded to examine the claim of plaintiff on merits. Order of transfer to Special Court came to be passed after matter being placed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mandya. Said order of transfer having been passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge is based on the communication dated 24.09.2018 forwarded by the Court of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mandya. Averments made in the plaint as extracted by the Special Court would disclose that plaintiff had specifically contended that suit schedule property was granted to him by Tahsildar, Mandya by grant order RUOL 674/98-99 on 16.09.2002. It is also contended that by way of such grant he has been in possession and enjoyment of said land and he has also installed I.P. set and has raised coconut, mango and chikkoo trees. In other words, it is the specific case of plaintiff that land in question i.e., suit schedule property was granted to him. For initiating proceedings under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, provisions of Sections 2(e), 2(f) or 2(i) would be subject to such person falling within the definition of Section 2(e) and 2(f) of the Act. To put it differently, Court adjudicating the lis has to form an opinion that land which is in question is a government land and plaintiff/defendant, as the case may be, would fall within the definition of Section 2(e) or 2(f) and only on such opinion being formed or finding recorded Civil Court will seize to have jurisdiction and only such matters requires to be transferred to the Special Court constituted under the Act as prescribed under Section 20. In the absence of such opinion or finding recorded by the Civil Court, there cannot be any transfer/simplicitor. Hence, we are of the considered view that judgment passed by the Special Court in LGC (T) No.1626/2018 – Annexure-A will have to be set aside and matter deserves to be remanded back to Principal Civil Judge, Mandya, for disposal by taking into consideration observations made hereinabove.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Judgment dated 15.04.2018 passed in LGC (T) No.1626/2018 (O.S.No.101/2015) - Annexure-A by Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court is hereby quashed.
(iii) O.S.No.101/2015 is restored to the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mandya, for being disposed of keeping in mind observations made hereinabove.
(iv) No order as to costs.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE DR