IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.200 OF 2016 (LR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAGARAJU SON OF LATE B. K. GANGABYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. SRI MAYANNAGOWDA SON OF LATE B. K. GANGABYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BYRANAHALLI, T. BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 102.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI V. PADMANABHA MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA -562 102, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
3. SRI RANGAIAH SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES A) B. R. MUNIRAJU SON OF LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
B) B. R. RAMESH SON OF LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NO.3(A) TO 3(B) ARE RESIDING AT BYRANAHALLI VILLAGE, T. BEGUR POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 102. (RESPONDENT NO.3(A) TO 3(B) AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 30.10.2017.
4. SMT. BYRAMMA, WIFE OF LATE B. K. GANGABYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (A) B. G. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
(B) VIJAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
(C) JAGADAMBA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
(D) SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.4(A) TO 4(D) ARE DAUGHTERS OF BYRAMMA, RESIDING AT BYRANAHALLI, T. BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NOS.4(A) TO 4(D) AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.03.2019.
5. THE TAHASILDAR, NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 102.
6. SRI BYREGOWDA SON OF LATE KAMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT BYRANAHALLI, T. BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 102.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. R.ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-1,R-2 AND R-5;
SRI N. K. KANTHARAJU, ADV. FOR R-3(A) & R-3(B); SRI MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-6;
R-4(B) AND R-4(D) ARE SERVED;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-4(A) AND R-4(C) HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.5662 OF 2015 DATED 26.08.2015.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in issuing a direction that the petitioner is entitled to approach the Land Tribunal, with necessary application to recall the order dated 06.02.1976, on the ground of fraud, respondents nos.3 and 4 therein have filed this appeal.
2. The plea of the petitioner before the Land Tribunal was that the Land Tribunal by accepting the statement of Smt.Muniyamma admitting that one Sri.Gangabyraiah was the tenant for 20 years, allowed the application in Form No.7. Occupancy rights were granted in favour of Sri.Gangabyraiah. The plea is that even though there was a delay of 40 years in filing the writ petition, the writ petitioner was not arraigned as a respondent before the Land Tribunal. That the claim of Sri.Gangabyraiah, being a tenant for the last 20 years was wrongly accepted. That in the statement Sri.Gangabyraiah, it was recorded that Smt.Muniyamma was the second wife of Sri.Gangabyraiah and under a mortgage deed, he was in possession and enjoyment of the land. Based on this, occupancy rights, was granted by the Land Tribunal.
3. The petitioner being the legal representative, was a minor and was represented by the natural guardian, his mother. He was permitted to prosecute O.S.No.300 of 1957, wherein by the judgment dated 28.05.1959, Smt.Muniyamma was entitled to hold a life estate in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner was justified in his submissions that a fraud was played to obtain the order dated 06.02.1976 by the Land Tribunal. In view of the fact that ‘fraud vitiates everything’, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Land Tribunal to recall the impugned order therein.
4. On considering the contentions, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from an error of law. The question of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Land Tribunal, seeking to review its final order is impermissible. Such a power has not been granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Tribunal has no power to recall or review its own orders. Therefore, when the order is sought to be questioned on the ground of fraud, such a fraud should necessarily have to be alleged and proved before the learned Single Judge. It was for the learned Single Judge to accept or reject the contentions on fraud. The question of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to file an application to recall the said order is erroneous, as it runs beyond the mandate of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Therefore, that portion of the order of the learned Single Judge becomes faulty.
5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is needless to state that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the learned Single Judge based on the contentions advanced by the petitioner. If the learned Single Judge is of the view that fraud has occasioned, he is at liberty to deal with it in the manner known to law. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 26.08.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5662 of 2015 is set-aside. The writ petition is restored to file. The learned Single Judge shall reconsider the petition on merits in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ Ct:sm