IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.72-75 OF 2019 (KLR- LG) BETWEEN:
1. Sri.R.Subramanya, S/o late Ramakrishnaiah, Aged about 58 years, Residing at Main Road, Kote Belur, Beluru Taluk, Hassan District – 573 115.
2. Smt. S.Geetha, W/o Sri. Rajshekhar, Aged about 54 years, Residing at Main Road, Kote Belur, Beluru Taluk, Hassan District – 573 115.
3. Sri.B.R.Mallikarjuna, S/o late Ramakrishnaiah, Aged about 46 years, Residing at Main Road, Kote Belur, Beluru Taluk, Hassan District – 573 115.
4. Sri.B.R.Subhash, S/o late Ramakrishnaiah, Aged about 48 years, Residing at Main Road, Kote Belur, Beluru Taluk, Hassan District – 573 115. ... Appellants (By Sri. Naik N.R., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Secretary, Education Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, Hassan – 573 201.
4. The Tahasildar, Beluru, Beluru Talu, Hassan District – 573 115.
5. The Y.D.D.First Grade College, Belur by its Principal, Beluru Taluk, Hassan District – 573 115. ... Respondents (By Sri.T.L.Kiran Kumar, AGA for R1 to R4) These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set-aside the order passed dated 30.09.2013, passed in WP Nos.3675-
3678/2012 [KLR-LG]; the observation made by the learned Single Judge shall be removed in respect of land 4 acres, in Sy.No.78 of Nidagodu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Belur Taluk, is not acquisition proceeding and grant made in favour of fifth respondent.
These Writ Appeals coming up for Preliminary Hearing, this day, P.S. Dinesh Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The appellants claim to be owners of four acres of land in Sy.No.78 (new No.108) of Nidagodu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Belur Taluk. They purchased the said land from Shri Nagappa S/o Nachimuttu on 09.02.1998 and claim that they continue to be in possession of the land. Nagappa purchased the said land in the year 1961. The State Government granted land for construction of I Grade College on 27.11.1984 which included this land also. Accordingly, they have filed the instant writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondents to get them back four acres of land illegally occupied by I Grade College or to provide any alternative land.
2. Hon’ble Single Judge, by order dated 30.09.2013 has disposed of the writ petitions with a direction that if the petitioners were to make an application seeking for grant of land, it shall be open for the State Government to consider the same. Petitioners filed a review petition with a delay of 1749 days. The Hon’ble Single Judge, rejected the review petition with costs. Hence, these writ appeals.
3. Shri Naik N.R., learned advocate for the appellants submits that the appellants have purchased the land in question in the year 1998. However, the fifth respondent – YDD I Grade College is in illegal occupation of the land in question and therefore the appellants are entitled for an alternative land or compensation in lieu of land.
4. Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that except producing a copy of a sale deed, the appellants have not produced any other documents to establish their right. The land was granted pursuant to the grant certificate dated 14.07.1961 and the entire land as described in the schedule has been transferred to the College and subsequently as admitted by the appellants, the College is in occupation of the land in question.
5. Indisputably, land has been granted to the College in the year 1984. Petitioners claim to have purchased the said land in the year 1998. Except producing a copy of the sale deed, petitioners have not produced any other documents such as mutation records or tax paid receipts, Darakast etc. to show that they are the owners of the land in question.
6. These appeals are presented with a delay of 1902 days. Having considered the appeals on merits and the reasons shown for condonation of delay, we find these appeals merit less and reasons shown for condonation unsatisfactory. Accordingly, we dismiss I.A.1 of 2019 filed for condonation of delay. Consequently the appeals are also dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE sac*