IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.6513 OF 2012 (KVOA) AND WRIT APPEAL No. 8043 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
SRI R MUNISWAMY SON OF CHIKKATHAYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SRI. NARAYANASWAMY B.M. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SON OF LATE C MUNISWAMY RESIDING AT CHIKKABEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLIBANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 068.
….APPELLANT (BY SRI. K SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI K MUNIKRISHNAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS a) M. KANAKARAJ SON OF LATE K MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 158 CHICKA BEGUR BEGUR POST-560 068 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 068.
2. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU–560 001.
3. SRI. L NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SON OF LATE LINGAPPA (ARAKERE LINGA) RESIDING AT CHICKABEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 068.
4. SRI. B R RANGASWAMY MAJOR IN AGE SON OF LATE B C RAMAIAH RESIDING AT CHICKABEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 068.
5. SRI B R VENUGOPAL MAJOR IN AGE SON OF LATE B C RAMAIAH RESIDING AT KUDLAGATE BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 068.
6. SRI MUNIYELLAPPA MAJOR IN AGE CARE OF LATE SONNAPPA RESIDING AT BEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 068 7. SRI SAMPANGIRAMAIAH MAJOR IN AGE SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAPPA RESIDING AT CHIKKATOGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 068.
8. SRI MUNIYAPPA SON OF BADAGI KAVERAPPA MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT BEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 068.
9. SRI MOSARU MUNIYAPPA MAJOR IN AGE SON OF THAMMAPPA RESIDING AT CHIKKABEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 068.
10. SRI ERAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES a) SMT. SHANTHAMMA WIFE OF LATE ERAPPA AGED 68 YEARS b) SRI NARAYANA SWAMY SON OF LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS c) SRI DEVARAJ SON OF LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHICKABEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 068.
11. SRI LAKSHMANA MAJOR IN AGE SON OF SUBBAIAH RESIDING AT CHIKKABEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 068.
…..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1(A) (ABSENT) SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-2 SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 (ABSENT) R-4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED R-5 TO R-11 ARE DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.09.2013) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.14133 OF 2009 AND 25600 OF 2009 DATED 13.09.2012.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.11.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant is not a party to the writ petitions. He has filed this writ appeal challenging the common order dated 13.09.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3793 of 2009 connected with Writ Petition Nos.14133 of 2009 and 25600 of 2009, on the ground that by virtue of the impugned order, his right is infringed. The appellant sought permission to prosecute the appeal. This court vide order dated 5.6.2014 granted permission to prosecute this appeal. Respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.14133 of 2009 and 25600 of 2009.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
It is the case of the petitioner that he was in cultivation and enjoyment of land in Sy.No.161, 197, 184, 222 and 246 measuring 4 acres, 20 guntas, 25 guntas, 14 guntas and 22 guntas respectively and that he has not alienated or conveyed the aforesaid lands in favour of 3rd parties and he had continued in occupation. Petitioner being re-grantee under KVOA Act and order of re-grant has been caused by this court with a direction that all the concerned parties be heard by the Tahsildar, including the petitioner. That no notice of further proceedings was served on the petitioner after such remand. The same was challenged in appeals in M.A.Nos.52 of 1995 and 162 of 2006 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court III Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.10.2008. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2008 passed in M.A.No.52/1995 and 162/06 by the learned District Judge filed Writ Petition Nos.14133 of 2009 and 25600 of 2009. Another similar matter in Writ Petition No.3793 of 2009 filed by one L. Nanayana, respondent No.3 herein, was connected with these petitions. The learned Single Judge vide common order dated 13.09.2012, disposed off the writ petitions observing that the persons who had been re-granted the lands were required to be heard and the petitioners in the writ petitions being the person who had been re-granted the land not having been heard, resulted in failure of justice. It is on that short ground the matter would have to be remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. Though by efflux of time, there were several claimants who claimed legitimate transaction under which they have come into possession of the lands, it is also appropriate that they be given a right of hearing as well and to address the validity of their claims and quash the order of learned District Judge passed in the above said appeals.
The appellant has challenged the order of learned Single Judge passed in the aforesaid writ petitions, in these appeals.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2. Counsel for R1(a) and R3 is absent. Perused the records.
4. As per the order dated 16.05.1983, passed by the Tahsildar indicates that one Lingappa has been granted land measuring 6 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.204. Thus, even if the respondent No.3 is having any right to any property, being the so called son of the very same Lingappa, his claim, if any, shall have to be necessarily confined only to Sy.No.204, that too to the extent of 6 acres 9 guntas. The claim of the writ petitioner/respondent No.3 herein as indicated in the writ petition, is in respect of not merely the lands in Sy.No.204, but also the lands in respect of Sy.No.196, 197, 200, 246 and 181 which admittedly were not granted under the order dated 16.05.1983, passed by the Tahsildar in favour of Lingappa. The respondent No.3 herein did not challenge the order dated 16.05.1983. The said order has attained finality against respondent No.3 in respect of Sy.No.204 measuring 6 acres 9 guntas, which was re-granted in favour of Linganna. So far as other lands are concerned, it was re-granted to others. The other parties who are unauthorized cultivators, aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.1983, passed by the Tahsildar in respect of other lands, filed a batch of writ petitions i.e., Writ Petition Nos.13363-13370 of 1989 and other connected matters. This court vide order dated 13.11.1989, quashed the order of Tahsildar and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar with a direction to afford fresh opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, including the petitioner therein and dispose off the applications for re-grant afresh on merits, in accordance with law. That after remand, the Tahsildar passed an order dated 14.03.1995, re-granting the lands in favour of unauthorized cultivators. The said order was challenged before the District Judge in M.A.Nos.52 of 1995 and 162 of 2006. During the pendency of the appeals, respondent No.3 herein filed an application for impleading. The learned District Judge rejected the application for impleading filed by respondent No.3 and dismissed the appeal on 30.10.2008. The respondent No.3 filed the Writ Petition No.3793 of 2009. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 30.10.2008, quashing the order passed in M.A.Nos.52/1995 an 162/2006, and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for reconsideration after giving an opportunity to all the parties concerned.
5. The appellant herein is claiming a right in Sy.No.161, which was the subject matter of re- grant. The appellant was not arrayed as a party in the writ petitions. It is the contention of the appellant that if any order is passed by the Tahsildar, it will effect his right and hence the appellant should also be heard in the re-grant proceedings.
6. The learned Single Judge has rightly remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for reconsidering the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to the aggrieved parties. In view of the above facts, we direct the Tahsildar to provide an opportunity to the appellant to participate in the re-grant proceedings and pass appropriate orders.
7. With the above observation, the writ appeals are disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RD