IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.30598 OF 2010(LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.30599 OF 2010(LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.30600 OF 2010(LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.30601 OF 2010(LR) WP.NO.30598 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAN S/O LATE SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A DODDAMANE VILLAGE MAROLI, POST KULASHEKARA, MANGALURU, DK. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.B.JAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER SAKSHAMA PRADHIKARA, D.C.COMPOUND, MANGALURU.
3. RAMA AMIN S/O LATE MONAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.1-78/2, DEVIKRUPA PACHANADY, MANGALURU.
4. *BHARATENDRA S/O LATE P.D.BANGERA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAGUNDA, NEAR BHARATH PRINTERS, PADAVI KAIKAMBA, KULASHEKARA, MANGALURU – 05.
*SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 4(a) SMT.VRINDAMANI W/O LATE BHARATENDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4(b) KUM.PRASHASTI D/O LATE BHARATENDRA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS BOTH ARE UNDER C/O ARUNKAR, R/AT “ARCHANA”, NEAR UNION BANK, BIKARNAKATTE, KAIKUMBA, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU – 570 005. ... RESPONDENTS *AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 28.03.2017.
[BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI V.S.VENKATESHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R3, AND R4(a) AND 4(b)] ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2010 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.632 OF 04 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
WP.NO.30599 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
SMT.KOOSAMMA D/O LATE MADHAVA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A DODDAMANE VILLAGE MAROLI, POST KULASHEKARA, MANGALURU, DK. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.B.JAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER SAKSHAMA PRADHIKARA, D.C.COMPOUND, MANGALURU.
3. RAMA AMIN S/O LATE MONAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.1-78/2, DEVIKRUPA PACHANADY, MANGALURU.
4. *BHARATENDRA S/O LATE P.D.BANGERA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAGUNDA, NEAR BHARATH PRINTERS, PADAVI KAIKAMBA, KULASHEKARA, MANGALURU – 05.
*SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 4(a) SMT.VRINDAMANI W/O LATE BHARATENDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4(b) KUM.PRASHASTI D/O LATE BHARATENDRA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS BOTH ARE UNDER C/O ARUNKAR, R/AT “ARCHANA”, NEAR UNION BANK, BIKARNAKATTE, KAIKUMBA, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU – 570 005. ... RESPONDENTS *AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 28.03.2017.
[BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI V.S.VENKATESHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R3, AND R4(a) AND 4(b)] ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2010 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.633 OF 04 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
WP.NO.30600 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
SMT.POOVAMMA D/O LATE GOPALA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A DODDAMANE VILLAGE MAROLI, POST KULASHEKARA, MANGALURU, DK. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.B.JAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER SAKSHAMA PRADHIKARA, D.C.COMPOUND, MANGALURU.
3. RAMA AMIN S/O LATE MONAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.1-78/2, DEVIKRUPA PACHANADY, MANGALURU.
4. *BHARATENDRA S/O LATE P.D.BANGERA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAGUNDA, NEAR BHARATH PRINTERS, PADAVI KAIKAMBA, KULASHEKARA, MANGALURU – 05.
*SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 4(a) SMT.VRINDAMANI W/O LATE BHARATENDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4(b) KUM.PRASHASTI D/O LATE BHARATENDRA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS BOTH ARE UNDER C/O ARUNKAR, R/AT “ARCHANA”, NEAR UNION BANK, BIKARNAKATTE, KAIKUMBA, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU – 570 005. ... RESPONDENTS *AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 28.03.2017.
[BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI V.S.VENKATESHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R3, AND R4(a) AND 4(b)] ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2010 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.635 OF 04 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
WP.NO.30601 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
SRI JAYAPRAKASH S/O LATE GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A DODDAMANE VILLAGE MAROLI, POST KULASHEKARA, MANGALURU, DK. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.B.JAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER SAKSHAMA PRADHIKARA, D.C.COMPOUND, MANGALURU.
3. RAMA AMIN S/O LATE MONAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.1-78/2, DEVIKRUPA PACHANADY, MANGALURU.
4. *BHARATENDRA S/O LATE P.D.BANGERA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAGUNDA, NEAR BHARATH PRINTERS, PADAVI KAIKAMBA, KULASHEKARA, MANGALURU – 05.
*SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 4(a) SMT.VRINDAMANI W/O LATE BHARATENDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4(b) KUM.PRASHASTI D/O LATE BHARATENDRA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS BOTH ARE UNDER C/O ARUNKAR, R/AT “ARCHANA”, NEAR UNION BANK, BIKARNAKATTE, KAIKUMBA, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU – 570 005. ... RESPONDENTS *AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 28.03.2017.
[BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI V.S.VENKATESHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R3, AND R4(a) AND 4(b)] ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2010 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.634 OF 04 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER All the writ petitioners had filed applications for grant of occupancy rights. By the order dated 13-12-2002 occupancy rights were granted in their favour. Questioning the grant of land to them, appeals were filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in No.632 to 635/2004. The appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order of the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents before the Tribunal have filed these petitions.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Tribunal committed an error in allowing the appeals. That the finding recorded by the appellate Tribunal is erroneous. That the lands have been rightly granted in favour of the petitioners in a manner known to law. Therefore, to hold that there is suppression of material while obtaining the grant is opposed to law and hence she pleads that the petitions be allowed.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents disputes the same. He contends that a fraud has been committed by the writ petitioners before the authorities. That they were not in actual possession and cultivation of the lands to claim grant of occupancy rights. That there is no jural relationship between the applicant and the landlord. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petitions.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in these petitions. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the landlords. There is no material as to how Form No.7 filed by the writ petitioners were considered and lands were granted to them. Respondents herein had filed O.S. No. 87/1991 for partition of joint family properties. The grantees were the defendants therein. The suit was decreed awarding shares in respect of the property shown in the schedule therein. The grantees claim the occupancy rights of different portions of the property with respect to which the Civil Court had passed a decree. The grantees were members of the joint family. They have failed to prove that they were cultivating the lands as tenants and paying Gutta/Geni to the lands owners, thereby have suppressed the blood relationship between the parties. They have suppressed the material facts. They have played a fraud in obtaining occupancy rights. For all these reasons, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the grants made in favour of the writ petitioners were fraudulent. They were not supported by any material or documentation in their favour. Thereby any order obtained by fraud would be void. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeals.
I find no good ground to interfere with the well considered order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed. Rule discharged.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-