IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.25210/2018(LR-RES) BETWEEN SRI RAMACHANDRA HEBBAR S/O MANUNATHA HEBBAR, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. KOLLURU - 576201.
KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LAND REFORM TRIBUNAL, KUNDAPURA – 576 201.
UDUPI DISTRICT.
2. THE THAHASHILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576201. UDUPI DISTRICT.
3. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE A.M. SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT AKLAVATTI HOUSE, KUDUVALLI – POST-577 226 THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGGA DISTRICT 4. SMT. SHOBHA KRISHNA MURTHY D/O LATE A.M.SRIDHAR AGEDA BOUT 58 YEARS 5. SUREKHA RAMAKRISHNA D/O LATE. A.M. SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 6. SUCHITRA D/O LATE A.M. SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 7. JAUYASHREE GANESH D/O LATE A.M. SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 ARE KALAVATTI HOUSE, KUDUVALLI POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK - 577443. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2017 IN APPEAL No.785/2008 (REVENUE) ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.(ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY 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. Petitioner herein is impugning the judgment dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure ‘D’ to the petition) passed in Appeal No.785/2008 (Revenue) on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the K.A.T’), Bengaluru. By the said judgment, the K.A.T., has allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos.3 to 7 in this petition and one Sujay Ramesh while setting aside the order dated 07.04.2006 passed by the first respondent - Prescribed Officer and Assistant Commissioner in proceedings No.LRF:7A:1831/1998- 99.
3. The records would indicate that the petitioner filed an application in Form No.7A under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended by the Karnataka Act No.23 of 1998 with effect from 01.11.1998, seeking occupancy rights in respect of 0.25 Acre of land in Sy.
No.25/3 situate in Kolluru village, Kundapura Taluk. The said application was registered in proceedings No. LRF.7A.1831:1998-99 before the first respondent.
4. The first respondent herein has observed that that the applicant – Sri K. Ramachandra Hebbar (petitioner herein) was found in possession of an extent of 0-03 acre of land in Sy. No.25:4c3 and an extent of 0-16 acre of land in Sy. No.25:3p3 as on 01.03.1974 and immediately before the said date and accordingly, granted occupancy rights in respect of the said lands in his favour vide order dated 07.04.2006 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petition).
5. The said order of the first respondent was subject matter of challenge in Appeal No.785/2008 (Revenue) preferred by the wife and children of the land owner – Sri A.M. Sridhar (respondent Nos.3 to 7 herein and one Sujay Ramesh) before the K.A.T. The said appeal was filed with delay of 2 years 116 days.
6. The K.A.T., after considering the contentions of the parties, by its judgment dated 30.08.2017, condoned the delay of 2 years 116 days in filing the appeal (appeal No.785/2008) and allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order dated 07.04.2006 passed by the first respondent – Prescribed Officer and Assistant Commissioner in proceedings No.LRF:7A:1831/1998-99. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
8. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the K.A.T. has noticed that the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the land owner - Sri A.M. Sridhar, were not made parties in proceedings No.L.R.F.7A.183/1998-99 before the first respondent – Prescribed officer and Assistant Commissioner. It has taken note of the fact that one Trivikrama Adiga had filed an application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of 0.25 cents in Sy. No.25/3 and another land i.e., 0.24 cents in Sy. No.24-8 before the Land Tribunal, Kundapura. It is seen that the Land Tribunal on the basis of the admission of the applicant – Trivikrama Adiga that the said lands were not agricultural lands, but were residential properties, rejected the said application by its order dated 18.03.1976. It has come on record that the said order of the Land Tribunal has become final as the applicant – Trivikrama Adiga did not choose to challenge the same. The K.A.T. has observed that the second respondent (petitioner herein) had filed an application in Form-2A under Section 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, before the Land Tribunal, Kundapura, seeking grant of 0.27 cents of land in Sy. No.25/3 and in the said application, he had stated about the existence of a house, cattle shed, bath room and a well in the said land, but there was no mention of any agricultural land.
9. The K.A.T., has also referred to the order dated 23.09.1985 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kundapura, in case No.HSD:6/82-83, whereby the second respondent (petitioner herein) was granted land measuring to an extent of 05 cents in Sy. No.25/3 of Kolluru village. The said order was the subject matter of challenge in writ petition in W.P. No.28922/1991 filed by the landowner - Sri A.M. Sridhar before this Court. It is stated that in the said writ petition, after the death of the said Sri A.M. Sridhar, the appellants before the K.A.T., were brought on record as his legal heirs. A coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order dated 20.10.1997, has allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the order dated 23.09.1985 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kundapura, and has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
10. The K.A.T. considering the material on record has opined that the land in question was not an agricultural land and the second respondent therein (petitioner herein) had not produced any document to show that he was cultivating the said land as on 01.03.1974, the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. In the fact situation, the K.A.T., has observed that if the second respondent (petitioner herein) was residing as an agricultural coolie in the house constructed in a portion of the land in question, then he could demonstrate the same and seek redressal of his grievance in the remanded proceedings, which was pending consideration before the Land Tribunal, Kundapura. Accordingly, the K.A.T., has set aside the order dated 07.04.2006 passed by the first respondent – Prescribed Officer and Assistant Commissioner in granting occupancy rights in respect of an extent of 0-19 acre in Sy. No.25/3 (0-03 acre in Sy. No.25:4c3 and 0-016 acre in Sy. No.25:3p3) in favour of the petitioner herein.
11. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment passed by the K.A.T., appears to be just and proper and same does not call for interference in this petition.
12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
13. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma