IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.14540/2018 & 15414/2018(LR-RES) BETWEEN SRI MUNIYAPPA ALIAS SEN MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE RAMANNA, MAJOR, R/AT BYANNANAPALYA ALIAS VAJARAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER V.M.RAJU S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT BYANNANAPALYA ALIAS VAJARAHALLI THALAGHATTAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 109 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R S RAVI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (SPL.THASILDAR) KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560002.
3. SRI M. MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/A THALAGATTAPURA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 109 4. T.V. SATYANARAYANA RAO SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (a) T S NAGENDRA S/O LATE T.V.SATYANARAYANA RAO (b) T S RAJALAKSHMI D/O LATE T.V. SATYANARAYANA RAO (c) SMT. T S TARA D/O LATE T V SATYANARAYANA RAO (d) SMT. T V VASANTHA KUMARA D/O LATE T V SATYANARAYANA RAO (e) SMT. T S PADMAVATHI D/O LATE T V SATYANARAYANA RAO (f) T S BANUMATHI D/O LATE T V SATYANARAYANA RAO ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.12, KOTA “B” GALLI, KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU-560 002 5. SRI R V RAMASUBBA RAO S/O VENKOBA RAO R/A No.17, VENKATASWAMAPPA ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 6. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD(METRO) NO.14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVANA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI KIRAN KUMAR V SAMRANI A/W SRI PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATES FOR C/R3 R4(a) to R4(f) AND R6 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2018 MADE IN LRF 39, 40/1974-75 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
`` O R D E R Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner herein claiming to be the tenant in respect of land measuring to an extent of 18 guntas in Survey No.5/3 situate at Thalaghattapura Village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, has come up in these writ petitions seeking quashing of the order dated 09.03.2018 vide Annexure ‘N’ to the petitions passed by the second respondent, namely, Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk, in proceedings No.LRF.39-40/1974-75. He has also sought for direction to respondent No.6, namely, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (Metro), not to disburse the compensation amount to the third respondent – Sri M. Munikrishnappa in respect of acquisition of a portion of the aforesaid land pursuant to the notice bearing No.KIADB/Metro/BhooSwaa/R4B-135 & 136/2017-18 dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure ‘Q’ to the petitions).
3. Admittedly, this is the fourth round of litigation before this Court with reference to the determination of occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land measuring 18 guntas in Sy. No.5/3 situate at Thalaghattapura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, presently part of Bengaluru City Corporation.
4. It is the case of the petitioner herein that he was the tenant of the aforesaid extent of 18 guntas of land in Sy. No.5/3 situate at Thalaghattapura village along with land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 36 guntas in Sy. No.6/3 of the same village under Sri V. Satyanarayana Rao, since deceased and represented by his legal heirs, respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(f) in these petitions. The petitioner filed an application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid two lands before the second respondent – Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk. The said application came to be registered in proceedings No.LRF.39/74-75.
5. The Land Tribunal considered the said application and noticed that in the pahani of land bearing Sy. No.5/3, the applicant’s name was found in the cultivator’s column from the year 1969-70 onwards. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 23.09.1977, conferred occupancy rights in favour of the applicant - Sri Muniyappa in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 18 guntas in Sy. No.5/3. However, the claim of Sri Muniyappa in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 36 guntas in Sy. No.6/3 was held to be not valid for the reason that he was mortgagee of the said land and prior to the mortgage, he was not cultivating the said land. It may be noted that the subject matter of these writ petitions is land measuring 18 guntas in Sy. No.5/3.
6. It is stated that the petitioner had paid the premium amount of Rs.140/- to the Government treasury on 02.06.1978. Subsequently, the Tahasildar has issued certificate of registration in Form No.10 dated 05.06.1978 (Annexure ‘C’ to the petitions) in favour of the petitioner herein in respect of the said land. The petitioner’s name was mutated in respect of the said land on the basis of mutation order vide MR No.5/78-79 (Annexure ‘D’ to the petitions).
7. It is stated that the third respondent in these petitions, namely, Sri M. Munikrishnappa, filed writ petition in W.P. No.36441/1982 before this Court impugning the order dated 23.09.1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk, in proceedings No.LRF.39/74-75 on the ground that he was subsequent purchaser of portion/s of land in Sy No.5/3 and he was not made party before the Land Tribunal.
8. In the said writ petition, a coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 18.06.1985 (Annexure ‘G’ to the petitions) held that the impugned order of the Land Tribunal was violative of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner therein – M. Munikrishnappa (respondent No.3 herein) though an interested person in the land in question was not made a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, it allowed the writ petition by quashing the order dated 23.09.1977 passed by the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal of the application filed by respondent No.2 – Sri Muniyappa (petitioner herein) after issuing notice to the petitioner therein (respondent No.3 herein) and after holding a fresh enquiry in strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974.
9. After remand of the matter for the first time, the Land Tribunal granted an interim order of status quo in respect of the land in question. It has come on record that during the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner herein moved contempt proceedings before this Court on the ground that the contesting respondents had violated the order of status quo passed by the Land Tribunal. In that regard, Division Bench of this Court had appointed Court Commissioner to conduct spot inspection and submit his report. In the light of the report submitted by the Court Commissioner to the effect that the contesting respondents had not violated the interim order of status quo, Division Bench of this Court had dropped the contempt proceedings against the accused therein.
10. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal considered the application in Form No.7 filed by the petitioner herein on merits and rejected the said application vide order dated 24.03.1997 passed in proceedings No.LRF.39:74-75, 40:74-
75. The said order passed by the Land Tribunal was the subject matter of challenge in W.P. No.14153/1997 (LR) preferred by the petitioner herein before this Court.
11. In the said writ petition, a coordinate Bench of this Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, opined that the petitioner was not afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard before the Land Tribunal, the proceedings of the Land Tribunal could not be said to be beyond shadow of suspicion and hence, the order of the Land Tribunal was liable to be quashed on the preliminary points discussed in the said petition without dwelling into the merits of the case. Accordingly, coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order dated 08.12.2004 (Annexure ‘H’ to the petitions) allowed the said writ petition by quashing the order of the Land Tribunal dated 24.03.1997 and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
12. When the matter was remanded for the second time, the Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry and considering the contentions of the parties, passed the order dated 07.11.2008 rejecting the application in Form No.7 filed by the petitioner herein. The said order passed by the Land Tribunal was called in question by the petitioner herein in W.P. No.5356/2009 (LR) before this Court.
13. A coordinate Bench of this Court which heard the said writ petition (W.P. No.5356/2009), noticed that there was alienation of the property in Sy. No.5/3 to the extent of 05 guntas approximately i.e., 85 feet x 35 feet in favour of the third respondent – Sri M. Munikrishna through sale deed way back in the year 1972 over which extent of land, the petitioner - Muniyappa could not claim occupancy rights. It further observed that the Land Tribunal was required to ascertain as to who was in possession of the remaining extent of land out of 18 guntas excluding the land which was sold in favour of the third respondent as on 01.03.1974. Accordingly, coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure ‘K’ to the petitions), allowed the writ petition in part by quashing the order dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Land Tribunal only to the extent of the remaining area in Sy. No.5/3 excluding the area of 05 guntas, which was sold in the year 1972, and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal to conduct enquiry in that regard after due notice to the parties.
14. It is seen that after remand of the matter for the third time, the Land Tribunal by order dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure ‘N’ to the petitions), once again rejected the application in Form No.7 filed by the petitioner herein. In the meanwhile, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short, ‘KIADB’) for and on behalf of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited has acquired certain extent of land in Sy. No.5/3 for the purpose of utilizing the same for construction of Metro station in Thalaghattapura. It is in this background that while filing these writ petitions, petitioner has not only challenged the order dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure ‘N’ to the petitions) passed by the Land Tribunal, but he is also seeking direction to respondent No.6 – Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB (Metro) not to disburse the compensation amount to the third respondent – M. Munikrishnappa towards acquisition of a portion of land in Sy. No.5/3 pursuant to the notice dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure ‘Q’ to the petitions) issued by the said authority to the third respondent herein.
15. In these writ petitions, a coordinate Bench of this Court ordered issuance of rule on 23.04.2018. On the said day, an interim order was also passed to the effect that any construction to be put up by the third respondent or anybody claiming through him on the schedule land (which is excluding 5 guntas) was subject to the result of these writ petitions.
16. These petitions are taken up for final disposal in the presence of Sri R.S. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.S. Budihal, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel, Sri Kiran Kumar V. Samrani, appearing for the contesting respondent No.3. Perused the orders impugned. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that the petitioner herein is claiming occupancy rights in respect of 18 guntas of land in Sy. No.5/3, which according to him was under his possession and cultivation as tenant as on 01.03.1974, the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. When the matter was taken up by the Tribunal for the fourth time pursuant to the order dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure ‘K’ to the petitions) passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.5356/2009(LR), the Land Tribunal has considered the contentions of the parties, spot inspection report submitted by the Commissioner and the revenue records. It is recorded in the impugned order of the Land Tribunal that respondent No.3 herein – Sri M. Munikrishnappa had purchased land measuring East to West 85 feet and North to South 35 feet under sale deed dated 23.08.1972, which was registered on 28.11.1972, from Sri T.V. Sathyanarayana Rao since deceased and represented by respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(f) herein, and Sri T.V. Ramasubba Rao, who was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and as respondent No.5 in these petitions. It is recorded in the order of the Land Tribunal that Sri T.V. Ramasubba Rao had died during the pendency of the proceedings and though his legal representatives were served with notice, they had not chosen to contest the proceedings. On the same day i.e., 23.08.1972, the land owners viz., Sri T.V. Sathyanarayana Rao and Sri T.V. Ramasubba Rao had sold another portion out of 18 guntas of land in Sy. No.5/3 in favour of Sri Muniyappa, son of late Hanumanthappa, under registered sale deed. Subsequently, the said land owners had sold the remaining extent of their holding in Sy. No.5/3 in favour of one Sri Munibyrappa under registered sale deed dated 24.11.1972. The subsequent purchasers, namely, Sri Muniyappa and Sri Munibyrappa in turn had sold their respective portions of land in Sy. No.5/3 in favour of the third respondent herein – Sri M. Munikrishnappa under two separate registered sale deeds dated 11.03.1975 and 09.11.1977 respectively.
17. It is seen that much prior to 01.03.1974, the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, three portions formed in the land measuring 18 guntas in Sy. No.5/3 were sold by Sri T.V. Sathynarayana Rao and Sri T.V. Ramasubba Rao in favour of three persons, namely, Sri M. Munikrishnappa (respondent No.3 herein), Muniyappa, son of late Hanumanthappa and one Munibyrappa under three registered sale deeds. This clearly goes to indicate that the petitioner herein – Sri Muniyappa was not in possession or cultivation of the land in question as a tenant as on 01.03.1974 and hence, he could not have maintained his application in Form No.7 against Sri T.V. Sathyanarayana Rao. Though the petitioner relied upon the entries in the RTC in respect of Sy. No.5/3, the Land Tribunal having regard to the fact that the said land in question was already sold by its original owners, Sri T.V. Sathyanarayana Rao and Sri T.V. Ramasubba Rao during the year 1972 in favour of respondent No.3 herein and two others, held that the presumptive value attached to the revenue entries stood rebutted by the registered sale deeds executed by the land owners.
18. It is seen that coordinate Bench of this Court while remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal had observed in its order dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure ‘K’ to the petitions) that there was alienation of the property in Sy. No.5/3 to the extent of 05 guntas approximately i.e., 85 feet x 35 feet in favour of respondent No.3 herien – Sri M. Munikrishnappa under sale deed way back in the year 1972 and petitioner’s (Muniyappa’s) claim for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said extent of land was liable to be rejected. However, so far as the remaining extent of land (13 guntas) in Sy. No.18 is concerned, as the relevant sale deeds were not produced by learned counsel for the petitioner therein, coordinate Bench of this Court proceeded under the notion that the same was sold during the year 1977 and opined that the Land Tribunal was required to ascertain as to who was in possession of the remaining extent of land (13 guntas) in Sy. No.5/3 as on 01.03.1974. Accordingly, coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 21.06.2012, quashed the order of the Land Tribunal dated 07.11.2008 only in respect of the remaining extent of land in Sy. No.5/3 excluding the area of 05 guntas, which was sold in the year 1972.
19. The Land Tribunal on verification of the records, has held that the land owners, Sri T.V. Sathyanarayana Rao and Sri T.V. Ramasubba Rao, had sold the remaining portion of land (excluding 05 guntas / 85 feet x 35 feet of land sold in favour of respondent No.3 – Sri M. Munikrishnappa under sale deed dated 23.08.1972) in Sy. No.5/3 in favour of two persons, namely, Sri Muniyappa, son of late Hanumanthappa, and Sri Munibyrappa under two registered sale deeds dated 23.08.1972 and 24.11.1972. The said sale deeds were executed by land owners much prior to 01.03.1974. Further, the Land Tribunal has recorded that the spot inspection report indicated that respondent No.3 herein – Sri M. Munikrishnappa was in possession of the land in question and he had constructed five residential houses on the said land and out of the said five houses, he had let out four houses and was residing in the remaining one house.
20. In the fact situation, the Land Tribunal has held that the claim of the petitioner herein seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the remaining extent of land (13 guntas) in Sy. No.5/3 after excluding 05 guntas, which was sold in favour of respondent No.3 – Sri M. Munikrishnappa in the year 1972, did not merit consideration as he had failed to prove that he was tenant as on 01.03.1974 and accordingly, rejected his application in Form No.7.
21. On going through the material available on record, it is clearly seen that the petitioner was not able to demonstrate his possession or cultivation with reference to any portion of land in Sy. No.5/3 in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the application in Form No.7 filed by the petitioner does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in these petitions.
22. In that view of the matter, the question of issuing direction to respondent No.6 – Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB (Metro) not to disburse the compensation amount in respect of acquisition of a portion of the land in Sy. No.5/3 situate at Thalaghattapura by KIADB., for the purpose of construction of Metro Station, in favour of respondent No.3 – Sri M. Munikrishnappa pursuant to notice dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure ‘Q’ to the petition) does not arise.
23. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.
24. In view of dismissal of these petitions, I.A. No.1/2019 for direction does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
25. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma