IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NOs.15507-15508/2018 (LR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SATYANARAYANA S/O BANK CHELUVIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT TOTADAMANE SCOTS BUNGLOW ROAD SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 438 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
2. SRI. S. SUBRAMANYA S/O SATYANARANYANA AGED ABOUT43 YEARS R/AT GOVINDAPPA STREET SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 438.
3. SRI. CHELUVARAJU S/O SATYANARANYANA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT GOVINDAPPA STREET SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 438.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ROOPESHA B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION PANDAVAPURA AND THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER UNDER SECTION 77A OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT.
SRI. RUKHRAJ, S/O IANSUKHMAL SRI. BOWRIBAI, W/O T. RUKHRAJ.
BOTH ARE DEAD AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
2. SRI. P. UMEDRAJ S/O LATE T. RUKRAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
3. SRI. T. TEJRAJ S/O LATE T. RUKRAJ AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
4. SRI. P. DALAPATHIRAJ S/O LATE T. RUKRAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
5. SRI. PRASANNARAJ S/O LATE T. RUKRAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
6. SRI. KUSHALRAJ S/O LATE T. RUKRAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
7. SRI. CHANCHALABAI S/O T. RUKRAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.210, ASHOKA ROAD MYSURU – 570 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C.KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI Y.K.NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV FOR R-2 TO 7) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO APPEAL NO. 1190/2017 FROM THE HON'BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED:31.10.2017 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.1190/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEX-J AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:20.08.2005 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEX-G AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION / FORM NO. 7A FILED BY THE APPELLANTS.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri B. Roopesha, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners, Smt. H.C.Kavitha, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-1 and Sri Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for respondents-2 to 7. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners herein filed form No.7A for grant of occupancy rights under Section 71A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) in respect of land bearing Sy.No.387 measuring 4 acres 14 guntas, Sy.No.388 measuring 3 acres 9 guntas and Sy.No.390 measuring 2 acres 19 guntas situated at Srirangapatna Village and Taluk, Mandya District, contending interalia that they are tenants under Sri B.R.Suryanarayana Rao since 1965 and they have continued in possession of the lands from 01.03.1974 till 01.11.1998 i.e., date of commencement of Amendment Act No.23/1998. Said application came to be adjudicated and rejected by first respondent herein by order dated 20.08.2005 (Annexure-G) which was carried in appeal in Appeal No.1190/2005, which came to be dismissed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru by order dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure-J). Hence, petitioners are before this Court.
3. It is the contention of Sri Roopesha, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, opposed to facts and circumstances of the case. He would also draw attention of the Court to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.49347/2004 (Annexure-E) whereunder, this Court had directed first respondent herein to dispose of all the applications filed by petitioners and ninth respondent therein in accordance with law and without complying with the said direction, application filed by petitioners under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) has been erroneously rejected. He would also contend that first respondent failed to consider the effect of judgment rendered by the competent civil Court in O.S.No.184/1981 against respondents 2 to 7 herein whereunder it has been categorically held that petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of petition schedule properties including the properties which is the subject matter of form No.7A filed by them. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petitions by quashing the impugned order.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate and learned Advocate appearing for respondents-2 to 7 would support the impugned order and pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of impugned order as well as case papers on hand, it would emerge there from that undisputedly, petitioners herein had filed form No.7 in respect of Sy.No.155 of B. Agrahara village claiming occupancy rights. Said application came to be adjudicated by the land Tribunal in LRF.80/79-80 and by order dated 28.09.1979 land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.155 of B.Agrahara village. At no point of time, petitioners had disputed filing of form No.7 in respect of Sy.No.155 of B.Agrahara village and land Tribunal having granted same in their favour. However, petitioners filed one more application form No.7A for grant of occupancy rights in respect of lands in question i.e., Sy.Nos.387, 388 & 390 after the period prescribed under Section 48A of the Act read with Rules had expired. Neither Section 48A nor any other provision under the Act would enable the tenant to file more additional applications. However, while filing an application in form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights tenant/applicant would be entitled to seek for grant of occupancy rights for more than one survey number situated in more than one village. If there are rival applicants, all applications are required to be clubbed, adjudicated by the jurisdictional land Tribunal. However, it requires to be noticed at the cost of repetition that there is no enabling provision for the tenant to file more than one application for different lands at different intervals.
6. In the instant case, when petitioners filed form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.155 of B.Agrahara village, which proceedings came to be registered as LRF.80/79-80, they did not disclose about they being in possession of any other land other than Sy.No.155. That apart, when they filed application under Section 71A for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.387, 388 & 390, they have not disclosed about filing of the application in respect of Sy.No.155 of B.Agrahara village. In fact, second application which came to be filed by petitioners for grant of occupancy rights was also time barred and as such, it came to be dismissed. It is this order which was assailed by petitioners before this Court in W.P.No.49347/2004 and it was contended therein that second petitioner therein who is also second petitioner herein as well as Sri – Cheluvaraj - 9th respondent therein and third petitioner herein had filed form No.7A on introduction of Section 77A by Act No.23/98 and all these applications were required to be adjudicated together and same had not been done and as such, a direction came to be issued by this Court to first respondent herein to dispose of all the applications filed by petitioners and 9th respondent in accordance with law. It is in this background, land Tribunal has examined the claim of petitioners for grant of occupancy rights and as already noticed herein above, claim of the petitioners was rejected for reasons more than one (already discussed herein above). While examining the claim of petitioners on merits, Tribunal has found that RTC extracts of Sy.Nos.387, 388 & 390 for the period 1968-69 to 1997-98 were standing the name of the owner of land Sri B.R.Suryanarayana Rao as reflected in column No.9 and 12(2). In other words, it has been held that there is no vesting of land in question under Section 44 of the Act and as such, question of considering applications of the petitioners filed either in form No.7 or form No.7A would not arise. Said finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on sound appreciation of facts and the extant law governing the issue. I do not find any other good ground to entertain these writ petitions. Hence, writ petitions stand dismissed.
Though it is contended that against judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.184/1981 appeal has been filed in R.A.No.166/2010 which was allowed and same is pending in RSA No.2223/2011, no opinion is expressed in that regard as it would have no bearing on these writ petitions.
SD/- JUDGE *sp