IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.10758-10760/2012(LR-SEC.77) BETWEEN 1. SRI N RAMPRASAD S/O LATE N RAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT No.163/2, 2ND MAIN VINAYAKA EXTENSION, K R NAGARA MYSORE DISTRICT-571602 2. SMT FATHIMA @ FATHIMA BI W/O LATE A. NADIR SHAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT MUSLIM BLOCK, K R NAGARA MYSORE DISTRICT-571602 3. SRI MOHAMMAD HANEEF S/O ABU BACKER, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A TIPPU EXTENSION MUSLIM BLOCK, K.R. NAGARA MYSORE DISTRICT-571 602 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI T.N VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOs.2 AND 3, VIDE ORDER DATED 05.03.2019, WP FILED BY PETITIONER No.1 IS HELD AS ABATED) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA Dr. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-1 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 602 3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN NANJANGUD TALUK NANJANGUD MYSORE DISTRICT-571 602 4. SHRI TRIPURA BHAIRAVI MUTT REP. BY ITS MAHANTH SRI SRI K KRISHNA MOHANANDA GIRI GOSWAMI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS No.573, ASHOKA ROAD GIRI GOSWAMI, NO.573 ASHOKA ROAD, MYSORE-571 602 5. SRI BHEESHMA PITHAMAHA S/O LATE MANIRAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS R/A No.573, ASHOKA ROAD MYSORE-571 602 6. SRI KULDEEP PRAKASH S/O SRI BHEESHMA PITHAMAHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A No.573, ASHOKA ROAD MYSORE-571 602 7. SMT. SHOBHA DEVI W/O SUDHIR MISHRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A No.573, ASHOKA ROAD MYSORE-571 602 8. SMT. HEMALATHA D/O BHEESHMA PITHAMAHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A No.573, ASHOKA ROAD MYSORE-571 602 9. SMT. NISHA SHARMA D/O BHEESHMA PITHAMAHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A No.573, ASHOKA ROAD MYSORE -571 602 10. SMT ANJANA D/O BHEESHMA PITHAMAHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A No.573, ASHOKA ROAD MYSORE-571 602 11. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O BHEESHMA PITHAMAHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A No.573, ASHOKA ROAD MYSORE -571 602 12. SMT Y A KANTHAMMA W/O LATE Y S ASHWATHANARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. (AMENDED TO TREAT R-13 AND R-14 HEREIN AS VIDE COURT LRs. OF DECEASED R-12. ORDER DATED 23.08.2013) 13. SRI Y A BALARAJ S/O LATE Y S ASHWATHANARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 14. SRI Y A DEVAPAL S/O LATE Y S ASHWATHANARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 15. Y S SATHYA MURTHY S/O LATE Y A SUBBAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 16. Y S RAMANATHA SHETTY S/O Y A SUBBAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 16(a) SRI SUDEV S/O LATE Y. S.RAMANATHA SETTY, MAJOR, R/AT No.13/39, BAZAR ROAD, (AMENDED VIDE K. R. NAGAR, COURT ORDER AND ALSO DOING BUSINESS AT DATED "RAMAN COFFEE WORKS", 13.01.2016) V. V. ROAD, K. R. NAGAR, MYSURU DISTRICT.
17. SRI JAYARAME GOWDA S/O BETTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A BOREGOWDANA KOPPALU GAVADAGERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571 602 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3 SRI VIJETHA R NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5, SRI H.MUJTABA, ADVOCATE FOR R17, SRI R.S.RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R14 R4, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R13, R15 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.04.2014, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON 16(a) IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 14.09.2011 PASSED IN LRF.94/1976-77 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, NANJANGUD, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2005 PASSED IN APPEAL NOS.1261,1262 & 1263 OF 2004, ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURES-B, C & D RESPECTIVELY AND THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED IN CASE NO.KLRF 65, 67 & 68/1999-2000 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HUNSUR SUB-DIVISON, HUNSUR VIDE ANNEXURES-H, J & K AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought for quashing of : the order dated 14.09.2011 vide Annexure ‘A’ to the petitions passed in proceedings No.LRF.94/1976-77 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Nanjanagud, Mysuru District; three separate orders of even date i.e., 21.06.2005 passed in Appeal Nos.1261, 1262 and 1263 of 2004 vide Annexures ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively, on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, and the orders dated 30.10.2000, 17.10.2000 and 17.10.2000 (stated as 14.02.2000 in the petitions) passed in case Nos.KLRF.65, 67 and 68/1999-2000 vide Annexures ‘H’, ‘J’ and ‘K’ on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Hunasuru sub-division, Hunasuru.
2. Admittedly, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein claim themselves to be tenants of the fourth respondent, namely, Shri Tripura Bhairvai Mutt (for short, ‘the Mutt’). According to them, the Mutt owned more than 800 acres of land in various Taluks and Districts. It is in this behalf, Form No.11 was filed by the then Mahantha, Sri P. Krishnananda Giri Goswami, of the Mutt under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, declaring the lands held by the Mutt in various Taluks. The said Mahanta of respondent No.4 – Mutt along with other applicants i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 11 herein and one Smt. Satyabhama filed declaration in LRF.94/76-77 under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, before the Land Tribunal, Nanjanagudu, Mysuru District, in declaring the excess land held by him and seeking permission to hold the extent of land as prescribed under the said Act subject to the ceiling limit shown therein. It is seen that the total extent of land i.e., 891 Acres 01 gunta was spread over in Immavu, Goddanapura, Maraluru, Aechagalli, Hebya, Adakanahallihundi and other sixteen villages, which are situate in Nanjanagudu taluk, Mysuru District. In the said proceedings, the applicants claimed that the said lands are not lands of the fourth respondent – Mutt, but they were properties belonging to the declarant - Sri P. Krishnanandagiri Goswami and his family members.
3. In case No.LRF.94/76-77, the Land Tribunal has referred to the earlier writ petitions that came to be filed by the declarant before this Court and the remand orders passed therein. Based on the declaration made by the declarant - Sri P. Krishnanandagiri Goswami, the Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry, by its order dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petitions), held that the declarant was entitled to 10 units of land and his family members i.e., Smt. Satyabhama was entitled to 10 units of land, Sri Bhishma pitamaha (respondent No.5 herein) and Sri Kuldeep Prakash (respondent No.6 herein) were together entitled to 20 units of land. It is further stated that the Land Tribunal by its majority decision has held that the daughters of Sri Bhishma Pitamaha, namely, Smt. Shobha devi, Smt. Hemalata, Smt. Nisha Sharma, Smt. Anjana and Smt. Vijayalakshmi (respondent Nos.7 to 11 herein) were entitled to 10 units of land each.
4. The said order of the Land Tribunal was the subject matter of challenge in W.P. No.41048/2011 preferred by respondent No.4 herein – Mutt before this Court. A coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 22.11.2012, dismissed the said writ petition. It is stated that the said order in W.P. No.41048/2011 is the subject matter of challenge in W.A. No.1052/2014 preferred by respondent No.4 – Mutt and the same is pending consideration before this Court.
5. When the matter stood thus, after amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which came into force in the year 1999, petitioners 1 to 3 herein, namely, Sri N. Ramprasad, Smt. Fathima @ Fathima Bi and Sri Mohammad Haneef, filed separate application (Annexures ‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘G’ to the petitions) in Form No.7A under Section 77-A, which was inserted by Act No.23 of 1998, of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, with effect from 01.11.1998, seeking occupancy rights in respect of the various extents of land referred to in their applications before the Land Tribunal, Hunasuru Taluk, Hunasuru, on the premise that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 herein and husband of petitioner No.2 herein were tenants under late Sri Krishna Nandagiri Goswami presently Sri Krishna Mohananandagiri Goswami. The said applications were registered in KLRF.65/99-2000, KLRF.68/99-2000 and KLRF.67/99-2000 respectively.
6. The competent Authority, Assistant Commissioner, Hunasuru sub-division, Hunasuru, dismissed the applications filed by petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein by separate orders dated 30.10.2000, 17.10.2000 and 17.10.2000 on the ground that the respective applicant had not produced relevant documents to show that himself / husband of the applicant – Smt. Fathima @ Fathima Bi in proceedings No.KLRF.68/99- 2000 was cultivating the land/s in respect of which the petitioners herein had sought occupancy rights as on 01.03.1974 or immediately prior to that and the said lands did not come within the purview of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997.
7. The said orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings Nos.KLRF.65/99-2000, KLRF.67/99-2000 and KLRF.68/99-2000 were subject matter of challenge in three appeals i.e., Appeal No. 1261/2004 (revenue) preferred by petitioner No.1 herein; Appeal No.1262/2004 (revenue) preferred by petitioner No.3 herein and Appeal No.1263/2004 (revenue) preferred by petitioner No.4 herein before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The appellant in appeal Nos.1261/2004 and 1262/2004 and the husband of the appellant in appeal No.1263/2004 are stated to be sub-tenants under the original tenant.
8. It is seen that the said appeals preferred by petitioners herein have been dismissed at the admission stage itself by separate orders of even date 21.06.2005 (Annexures ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ to the petitions) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal holding that no fruitful purpose was going to be served even if the said appeals were admitted.
9. Thereafter, the present writ petitions are filed by the petitioner contending that the declaration, which was made by the declarant – Sri P. Krishnanandagiri Goswami in proceedings No.L.R.F.94/76-77 is erroneous in holding that the properties mentioned in the order of the Land Tribunal dated 14.09.2011 were the properties of the declarant and his family members i.e., Smt. Satyabhama and respondent Nos.5 to 11 herein and in fact, the said properties belonged to respondent No.4 – Mutt and consequently, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein, who were tenants under respondent No.4 – Mutt, were entitled to seek occupancy rights in respect of the lands referred to in their respective application and pursuant to which proceedings were initiated in KLRF.65/99-200; KLRF.68/99-2000 and KLRF.67/99-2000 before the Land Tribunal, Nanjanagudu.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for the contesting respondents and on going through the material on record, it is clearly seen that the petitioners herein though they claim themselves to be tenant under the fourth respondent - Mutt in respect of the lands referred to in the applications in Form No.7A filed by them before the Competent authority, they have not produced any document to show their tenancy right in respect of the lands stated therein. The RTC., in respect of the lands claimed by them for the relevant period 1973-74 does not indicate that they were tenants in possession and cultivation and enjoyment of the same as required under the provisions of Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The petitioners having failed to establish their possession and cultivation in respect of the lands stated in their applications in Form No.7A before the competent authority i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Hunasuru sub-division, Hunasuru, which orders are confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal Nos.1261/2004, 1262/2004 and 1263/2004 filed by them.
11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any material to demonstrate that the petitioners were tenants of either respondent No.4 or respondent Nos.5 to 11 in these petitions at the relevant point of time when the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, came into force in 1974 and subsequently in 1999, their applications for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of the lands stated therein are rightly rejected by the competent Authority and the same has been confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the question of interfering with the concurrent finding of the Land Tribunal as well as Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, does not arise for consideration in these writ petitions. No grounds are made out by the petitioners to interfere with the impugned orders.
12. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
13. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma