IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.NO.54772/2018(KLR-RES) C/W W.P.NO.54774/2018(KLR-CON) C/W W.P.NO.54775/2018 (KLR-CON) W.P.NO.54772/2018 BETWEEN SRI BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O SINGARIGOWDA RESIDNG AT PURADAKOPPALU DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA-571 401 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADEESHA P, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA -571401 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA -571 401 3. THE THASHILDHAR MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2018 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.176/2016 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU (MYSURU CAMP), VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ONLY IN SO FAR AS REMANDING THE MATTER FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.
W.P.NO.54774/2018 BETWEEN 1. SMT SHIVAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA R/AT PURADAKOPPALU VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571416 2. SRI P C ANANDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA R/AT PURADAKOPPALU VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571416 3. SMT P C LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS D/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA R/AT PURADAKOPPALU VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571416 4. SRI P C SURESHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA R/AT PURADAKOPPALU VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571416 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI JAGADEESH P, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.
3. THE THASHILDHAR MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 401. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2018 PASSED IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.177/2016 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU (MYSURU CAMP), VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ONLY IN SO FOR AS REMANDING THE MATTER FOR THE R-1 AND ETC.
W.P.NO.54775/2018 BETWEEN SRI RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LINGAPPA @ BOLAPPA RESIDNG AT THUBINAKER MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 401 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADEESHA P, ADVOCATE)
(BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2018 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.178/2016 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU (MYSURU CAMP), VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ONLY IN SO FAR AS REMANDING THE MATTER FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER W.P.No.54772/2018 is filed by one Bettegowda, W.P.No.54774/2018 is filed by the legal representatives of Chennegowda (wife and children of Chennegowda) and W.P.No.54775/2018 is filed by one Ramalingaiah impugning the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 05.10.2018 in Appeal Nos.176/2016, 177/2016 and 178/2016 respectively.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in these three writ petitions is that in spite of long drawn battle between the petitioners and the State in O.S.No.255/989 on the file of Prl. Munsiff & JMFC, Mandya, for their right in Sy.No.134/2 of Mandya village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk, which is situated within its municipal limits, they are not able to enjoy the fruits of the decree. They would state that the stand taken by the State was that the entire extent of land bearing Sy.No.134/2 was acquired for the benefit of the Government was not accepted by the Court of the Prl. Munsiff & JMFC, Mandya in O.S.No.255/89. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration of title and possession to an extent of 26 guntas (inclusive of 10 guntas of karab land) was decreed.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed RA No.73/1994 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge, Mandya, which came to be dismissed on 17.02.1994. With this, the litigation between the petitioners herein and the respondent-State has reached finality. Subsequent to that an execution petition was filed by Boregowda (original owner) in Ex.No.194/94 seeking delivery of possession pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in the original suit in O.S.No.255/89 confirmed by the lower Appellate Court in RA No.73/1994. It is seen that in Ex.No.194/94 the Executing Court directed the State to deliver possession of the land in question in favour of the original owner-Boregowda which is complied by the authorities. With this, one round of litigation is won by the plaintiff-Boregowda.
4. Thereafter, there was division of the said extent of land between the plaintiff’s family and others where an extent of 02 guntas is given to the share of the petitioner-Bettegowda in W.P.No.54772/2018 which portion is referred to as New Sy.No.132/2P4, an extent of 03 guntas in New Sy.No.134/2P3 so far as the petitioners-Shivamma & others in W.P.No.54774/2018 and an extent of 02 guntas in New Sy.No.134/2P7 so far as petitioner-Ramalingaiah in W.P.No.54775/2018.
5. After purchase of land from the original owner-Boregowda, the petitioners filed application before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya, seeking conversion of their land from agriculture to residential purpose. Though the applications were filed in the year 2009 itself by the petitioners, the State Machinery is deliberately trying to delay the same more particularly at the instance of the Police Department, who after losing the battle is trying to usurp possession over the said land which virtually is contempt of the order of court. Be that as it may.
6. However, this Court is concerned with the conduct of the State in not considering the application of the petitioners for conversion. In fact, one of the members of the petitioners’ family had approached this Court in W.P. No.54773/2018 (Sri. Channamarigowda – vs- The Deputy Commissioner & Others) which came to be allowed on 20.03.2019 wherein a specific direction is given to respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner to convert the land of the petitioner in the said proceedings which is to an extent of 03 guntas i.e., after collecting necessary conversion charges. In these writ petitions also, the very same order is extended to the benefit of the petitioners herein. The Deputy Commissioner to first collect the conversion fee and thereafter to pass necessary orders.
7. Normally, this Court would not issue positive direction to State to do a particular act. The normal procedure is to direct the State to consider the application on its merits. However, in these writ petitions, this Court would issue positive direction for the simple reason that the respondents-Deputy Commissioner and the Police Department having lost their suit as against the petitioners’ family, are now trying to prevent the petitioners and others to peacefully enjoy the property belonging to them. This Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid officers should be made to appear before the contempt court to ensure that the concerned police officer and the revenue officer are taken to custody for flaunting the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Munsiff & JMFC, Mandya in O.S.No.255/1989 on 09.07.1992 which is confirmed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Mandya by its judgment dated 17.02.1994 in RA No.73/92.
8. It is further seen that the land being delivered to the original owner-Boregowda by order passed in Ex.P.No.194/1994 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, would clearly indicate that the manner in which the entire State machinery is harassing the petitioners and others. In the aforesaid fact situation, this Court is of the opinion that issuance of positive direction to the authorities as prayed in the writ petitions is necessary. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed setting aside the order of Karntaka Appellate Tribunal .
9. While doing so, this Court would impose cost of Rs.10,000/- against the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District and Rs.10,000/- on the Superintendent of Police, Mandya District and Rs.5,000/- on the Tahsildar, Mandya Taluk and District in each of the writ petitions to ensure that such dirty act is not repeated by them. It is made clear that the cost shall be deposited by them within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Registry shall ensure that the said amount is recovered from them as if it is arrears of land revenue.
Sd/- JUDGE TL