IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.6321 OF 2017 (LR) BETWEEN:
SRI. MUNIRAJU SON OF GURAPPA, SON OF MUNISHAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES a) SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA WIFE OF LATE MUNIRAJU AGED 55 YEARS.
b) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNIRAJU AGED 32 YEARS.
c) SRI. RAVI KUMAR SON OF LATE MUNIRAJU AGED 29 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 049.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N. BAYYA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BENGALURU EAST TALUK, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. KRISHNAPPA SON OF KUNTAPPA @ GIDDAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY L.R a) SMT. KENCHAMMA WIFE OF LATE KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049.
4. SRI. B S VENKATARAM SON OF LATE B.V.SEETHARAMAIAH, MAJOR BY AGE, NO.132, 1ST MAIN , JUMBO PHOTO MERCHANTS SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU–560 020.
5. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH RAOD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU–560 020.
6. SRI. KRISHNAPPA SON OF MUNISHAMEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY L.R a) SMT. PARVATHAMMA WIFE OF LATE KRISHNAPPA RESIDENT OF KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049.
7. SRI. RAMAIAH SON OF LATE KORACHARA MUNISHAMAPPA KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049.
8. SRI. APPANNA SON OF LATE ANNAYAPPA RESIDENT OF KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU -560 049.
9. SRI. ANJINAPPA SON OF NYATHAPPA RESIDENT OF KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU -560 049.
10. RUKAMMA DAUGHTER OF MUNISHAME GOWDA RESIDENT OF KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049.
11. SRI. SAKAPPA SON OF MUNISHAME GOWDA RESIDENT OF KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU -560 049.
12. SRI. MUNISWAMY SON OF THAYAPPA, RESIDENT OF KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049.
13. SRI. MUNIYAPPA SON OF ANNAYAPPA, RESIDENT OF KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049.
14. SRI. ANNAYAPPA SON OF LAKSHMAIAH, RESIDENT OF KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos. 1 AND 2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.32817/2017 [LR-RES] DATED 19/8/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN TOTO.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32817/2017, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioners are in appeal.
2. The petitioners filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order in case No.LRF.709.215.207/1074-75 c/w No.LRF.10/2003-04, dated 24.03.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent-the Land Tribunal; quash illegal award passed if any and order recovery of compensation illegally paid by the 6th respondent and to restrain the 6th respondent from paying compensations, allotment of incentives sites or any other benefits accrued from the acquisition of lands in Sy.No.19 of Konadasapura Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. It is asserted that the petitioners’ father late Gurappa was in lawfully holding and cultivating a portion of the land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.19 of Konadasapura Village, late Gurappa filed application seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.19 of Konadasapura Village. The Tribunal had granted occupancy right in favour of Gurappa to an extent of 13 guntas of land. The same was challenged and was set aside remitting the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. It is stated that there was no rival claim for grant of occupancy right in respect of the claim of 1 acre 27 guntas by the petitioners’ father. The Tribunal after remand by order dated 24.03.2016 granted occupancy right in respect of 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.19 of Konadasapura Village in favour of petitioners who are legal representatives of late Gurappa. The Tribunal while granting has noted that on record 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.19 would show Gurappa as tenant as on 01.03.1974 and as such, his legal heirs are entitled for occupancy right. The petitioners aggrieved by the same and on non- consideration of their request for grant of occupancy right in respect of 2 acres land, the petitioners filed instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the revenue records would show only 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.19 that the father of the petitioners was cultivating which the Tribunal has rightly granted, rejecting the balance claim. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners are in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition, ignoring the admission of the landlord. It is contended that the father of the petitioners-Gurappa was cultivating as on 01.03.1974 land in Sy.No.19 measuring more than 2 acres and after acquisition by Bengaluru Development Authority 1 acre 27 guntas was left for cultivation. The petitioners were entitled for grant of 1 acre 27 guntas. It is stated that the Gurappa was cultivating the land and by mistake of entries in RTC, the full extent was not mentioned, which cannot be a ground to reject the claim.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the Tribunal has rightly granted occupancy right in respect of land measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.19 of Konadasapura Village. As the petitioners father was cultivating the said land as on 01.03.1974, there is no record to show that the petitioners father- Gurappa was cultivating land as claimed by the petitioners. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The relevant date for consideration of occupancy right is 01.03.1974. The records produced by the petitioners would indicate that the father of the petitioners-Gurappa was cultivating the land to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.19 of Konadasapura Village, as on 01.03.1974. As such, looking into the available records the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right to an extent of 20 guntas in favour of the petitioners under the impugned order. On an earlier occasion, by order dated 20.01.2000, the land Tribunal had granted occupancy right to an extent of 13 guntas of land to the petitioners, which was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration. On remand the Tribunal on examination of the relevant material has found that Gurappa the father of the petitioners was cultivating land in Sy.No.19 as on 01.03.1974 to an extent of 20 guntas and not more than that as claimed by the petitioners. The petitioners have not produced any document, much less RTC to show that the petitioners father was cultivating land to an extent of 2 acres as on 01.03.1974. Further, the petitioners have not produced any documents before this Court also. After remand during fresh enquiry, there is no admission as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to cultivation by Gurappa to an extent of 2 acres as on 01.03.1974. On perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the order is neither perverse nor erroneous so as to interfere. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2017 for Stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2017 stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ CT: KHV