IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.2265-2266 OF 2010 (KLR-LG) Between:
1. Sri.Jayaramaiah, S/o Late Munivenkatappa, Aged about 52 years, R/at Hancharahalli Village, Bavarahalli Hobli, Mondur Post, K R Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-560 049.
2. Sri Somashekar.T, S/o. Late. Thimmaiah, Aged about 50 years, R/at Hancharahalli Village, Bavarahalli Hobli, Mondur Post, K R Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-560 049. ... Petitioners (By Sri. H.P.Leeladhar, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Revenue Secretary, Dr.Ambedkar beedhi, M.S.Building, Bengaluru.
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru.
3. The Tahasildar, K R Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru.
4. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. ... Respondents (By Sri.T.S.Mahantesh, AGA for R1 to R3; Sri.P.D.Surana, Advocate for R4) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the R-2 in LND(PU)C.R.212/07-08 dated 18/06/2008 under Annexure-A and directing the R-1 to 3 to grant the land to the petitioner and their family members as they are in possession of the said land since 1933 by imposing penalty/fees/any amount as contemplated under the KLR Act.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER Petitioners are claiming themselves to be the owners of land bearing Sy.No.52 measuring 16 acres 22 guntas, situate at Hancharahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. They are claiming ownership rights on the basis of Annexure-B which is Xerox copy of Form No.1 said to have been issued to one Veerahanumanthappa.
2. The said document at Annexure-B would clearly indicate that the nature of right Veerahanumanthappa had in Sy.No.52 measuring 16 acres 22 guntas is to harvest the dry trees standing on the aforesaid land. There is no reference to he either being cultivator or person in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as could be seen from Annexure-B which is the Xerox copy of the certified copy of Form No.1. There are no other documents under which the petitioners can claim title to the said property. However, in the records also, it does not clearly indicate as to how the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 came on record and how they refer themselves to Veerahanumanthappa whose name is shown in the said Annexure-B. However, it is seen from the records that they claim themselves to be the L.Rs of Veerahanumanthappa in whose favour the entries in Form No.1 are made. The petitioners claim that the said lands are in their cultivation and enjoyment till today. It is also stated that there is a temple in the said property and some portion of that is also used as burial ground by public in the locality and they are burying the dead bodies of their family members and other near relatives.
3. However, there is nothing on record to show that petitioners are cultivating the said land. When matter stood thus, it is seen that Respondent No.2-Special Deputy Commissioner by order dated 18.06.2008 in Proceedings No.LND(POO)CR.212/2007-08 has granted an extent of 13 acres 30 guntas in Survey No.52 of Hancharahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru to Respondent No.4, viz., Managing Director of BMTC for formation of bus depot of Respondent No.4-Corporation which is sought to be challenged in these proceedings on the basis of Annexure- A that the petitioners are owners of the said land.
4. When the entire material on record is looked into, the claim of the petitioners is not established as owners of the said land. The relationship of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to the person Veerahanumanthappa as shown in Annexure-B is also not established by producing genealogical tree to show that they are the legal heirs of Veerahanumanthappa. Even otherwise, the right of Veerahanumanthappa under Annexure-B is limited for the purpose of removal of dried trees standing on the aforesaid land. By removal of the same, his right is extinguished in the year 1963 itself. Therefore, relying upon the said document and without establishing the petitioners’ relationship to Veerahanumanthappa, they cannot claim themselves to be legal heirs of said person and consequently, stake claim to the said land.
5. Petitioners are claiming that they are cultivating the said land and are in enjoyment of the same as L.Rs of Veerahanumanthappa as it he was granted that land. When the grant is not established, petitioners claim as his legal heirs also not being established, they cannot maintain this writ petition. Even otherwise, perusing the entire material available on record, there is nothing to demonstrate the title of the said property to show that it was granted to Veerahanumanthappa.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.06.2018 passed in No.LND(POO)CR.212/2007-08 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru at Annexure-A in alloting an extent of 13 acres 30 guntas in Survey No.52 of Hancharahalli village to Respondent No.4-BMTC (‘Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation’).
7. Accordingly, these Petitions are dismissed.
8. In view of dismissal of writ petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv*