IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.48677/2018(KLR-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI B. NAGARAJU S/O LATE BETTEGOWDA MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SRI B. MANJU S/O LATE BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOSA ANANDURU VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571434 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA M.K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571434 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT-571434 3. TAHSILDAR SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK AKRAMA SAKRAMA COMMITTEE MANDYA DISTRICT-571434 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:28.04.2015 PASSED IN R.A.No.19/2006-07 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ORDER DATED:31.07.2017 PASSED IN R.A.No.21/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-N.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
2. Petitioner has sought for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the second respondent, namely, Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura sub-division, Pandavapura, in R.A. No.19/2006-07 vide Annexure ‘M’ to the petition and the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the first respondent, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya, in R.A. No.21/2015 vide Annexure ‘N’ to the petition.
3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Bettegowda.
It is contended by petitioners that their father was in possession and cultivation of 10 guntas of land in Sy. No.13 situate at Jakkanakuppe village, Belagola hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, and he was regularly paying T.T. fine in respect of the said land to the Government from the year 1962-63 onwards. It is stated that petitioners’ father, Bettegowda, died on 10.09.1988. After his death, his wife, Smt. Singaramma, was cultivating the land in question and she filed an application before the Tahasildar, Srirangapatna, on 13.09.1991 (Annexure ‘K’ to the petition) seeking regularization of her unauthorized occupation in respect of the said land. The Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation of land / Akrama Sakrama Committee (for short, ‘the Committee’) rejected the application filed by Smt. Singaramma, the mother of petitioners, by order dated 30.10.1992.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Committee, the petitioners herein filed appeal in R.A. No.19/2006-07 under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura sub-division, Pandavapura. The said appeal was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 16.02.2008.
5. Against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioners herein preferred appeal in R.A. No.10/2008-09 before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties, by his order dated 15.05.2009, rejected the said appeal by setting aside the order dated 16.02.2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.19/2006-07 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration and disposal.
6. In the remanded matter (appeal in R.A. No.19/2006-07), the Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the appellants (petitioners herein) and respondent -
Tahasildar, who submitted his report bearing No. RRT(1).CR:117/14-15 dated 23.01.2015 stating that the appellants had grown paddy in the land in question. The Assistant Commissioner has observed that as per akarbandh, out of total extent of 0-46 guntas of land in Sy. No.13, 20 guntas was B - kharab land and the remaining 26 guntas was ain (cultivable) land. The Land Tribunal, Srirangapatna, had granted the said ain land measuring 26 guntas in favour of Smt. Kempamma, wife of Siddegowda, vide order No.PRM:215/81-82 dated 06.02.1982, hakku patra was issued in her favour and khata was effected in her name vide M.R.No.1/88-89. The appellants (petitioners herein) were in possession and cultivation of 10 guntas of kharab land. The Assistant Commissioner noticed that as per the report of Land Surveyor and survey records including second re-class tippani, 0-01 gunta was phoot kalve kharab and 19 guntas (stated as 01 Acre 19 guntas in the order of the Assistant Commissioner) was reserved for the purpose of construction of pumping station quarters. Since the land in possession and cultivation of the appellants - petitioners herein was B-kharab land and same was reserved for the purpose of construction of pumping station quarters, the Assistant Commissioner held that it could not be granted in their favour.
7. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the appeal in R.A. No.19/2006-07 filed by petitioners herein vide order dated 28.04.2015 (Annexure ‘M’ to the petition). The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was the subject matter of challenge in appeal in R.A. No.21/2015 preferred by the petitioners herein under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya.
8. Perusal of the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner discloses that he has relied upon Re- class tippani dated 16.01.1962 and akarbandh, wherein the measurement of land in Sy. No.13 is shown as 0.46 guntas i.e., 01 Acre 06 guntas and out of that, 20 guntas is kharab land and the remaining 26 guntas is ain (cultivable) land. The Land Tribunal vide its order dated 06.02.1982 had granted occupancy rights in respect of 26 guntas of ain land in favour of Smt. Kempamma, wife of Siddegowda. Deputy Commissioner has observed that out of 0.20 guntas of land, which was reserved for the purpose of construction of pumping station quarters, the entire 0.01 gunta was set apart for kaluve (canal) and appellants were seeking occupancy rights in respect of an extent of 0.10 guntas in the said land. The Deputy Commissioner noticed that though the appellants (petitioners herein) had produced receipts depicting payment of T.T. fine by their father, Bettegowda, in respect of the said 10 guntas of land in Sy. No.13 from the year 1963-64 onwards, the said land had been reserved for construction of pumping station and quarters even prior to 16.01.1962. In the fact situation, the Deputy Commissioner held that the land, which was reserved for public purpose, could not be granted in favour of private persons and that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.04.2015 dismissing the appeal filed by appellants (petitioners herein) was based on proper reasoning and did not call for interference.
9. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 31.07.2017 (Annexure ‘N’ to the petition), rejected the appeal in R.A. No.21/2015 filed by petitioners herein. While doing so, Deputy Commissioner has directed the Tahasildar, Srirangapatna, to enter the name of ‘pumping station and quarters’ in the revenue records in respect of the land reserved for the said purpose (land measuring to an extent of 19 guntas in Sy. No.13). Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the material on record.
11. It is seen that the petitioners claim to be in possession and cultivation of land measuring 10 guntas in Sy. No.13, in respect of which, the application filed by their mother, Smt. Singaramma, for regularization of unauthorized occupation was rejected by the Committee on 30.10.1992. Further, the records would indicate that T.T. fine was paid by the petitioners’ father, Bettegowda, from the year 1962-63 onwards. However, even before the petitioners’ father came in possession of the said land, it had already been reserved for the purpose of construction of pumping station and quarters vide order dated 16.01.1962. Therefore, even payment of T.T. fine for the year 1962-63 by petitioners’ father (vide receipt at Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) would not enure to the benefit of the appellants – petitioners herein is the observation made by the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 31.07.2017 passed in appeal No.RA.21/2015.
12. In that view of the matter, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out by the petitioners for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the orders impugned in this petition. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed.
13. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma