IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.1307 & 1703/2019 (KLR – RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDAIAH S/O LATE MUGURU SIDDAIAH SINCE DECEASED, BY LEGAL HEIR UMESH S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O HANUMAPURA VILLAGE AMRUTHURU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572101. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI ASHOK PATIL, ADV.] AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU-572101.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DIVISION TUMAKURU-572101.
3. THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL, TUMUKURU-572101.
4. SRI A.H.SRIKANTAIAH IYAR S/O NILAKNATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O MALLAPURA AMRUTHURU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572101.
5. SRI A.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE A.H.ANATHRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O AMRUTHURU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572101. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 DATED 03.07.2018 IN FILE R.P.NO.30/2004-05 (OLD No.127/1999-2000) VIDE ANEX-E AND CONSEQUENTIALLY AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru dated 03.07.2018 as well as the order of the respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner dated 09.10.1998, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been allowed, directing the Tahasildar to enter the name of the respondent No.4 in the revenue records.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that, his grandfather was in possession and enjoyment as a cultivator of the land bearing Sy.Nos.76/1 and 76/2, situated in Jodi-Hanumapura Village, Kunigal Taluk. On his demise, his son Siddaiah continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. On the death of Siddaiah, his son and other legal heirs have continued to be in possession till date. Late Siddaiah had filed an application for grant of tenancy rights over the said lands. The application came to be rejected, as Siddaiah did not appear before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed an application before the Tahasildar to get their names entered in the record of rights, claiming to be in possession of the said lands. The Tahasildar after holding a spot inspection, held that the petitioner is in possession, despite the rejection of the application by the Tribunal and rejected the application of the respondent Nos.4 & 5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner which came to be allowed, reversing the order of the Tahasildar. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.1 and the same came to be dismissed, upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner – respondent No.2. Hence, these petitions.
3. Learned counsel Sri.Ashok Patil appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Deputy Commissioner without applying the mind, has upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner, sans assigning valid reasons The possession and cultivation of the lands in question by the petitioners being considered by the Tahasildar as per the spot inspection, reversal of the same on the basis of certain legal proceedings dehorse the possession proved by the petitioner is wholly unsustainable.
4. The respondent No.2 as well as the respondent No.3 have considered the claim of the petitioner profoundly to arrive at a decision. The reasons assigned by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to reverse the order of the Tahasildar are as under:
1]. Special Inam Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 26.12.1963 has conferred occupancy rights jointly in respect of Sri.A.H.Anantharamaiah, father of respondent No.5 and other 6 claimants in respect of Sy.No.76 [0.20] and 76/2 [2 acres 28 guntas] of Jodi-Hanumapura Village.
2]. Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.204/1973 relating to the land in Sy.No.76/1 measuring 20 guntas.
3]. Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.206/1973 in respect of lands in Sy.No.76/2 to an extent of 2 acres 28 guntas.
4]. The said judgments and decree are in favour of the father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and has reached finality.
5]. The claim of the applicants relating to conferment of occupancy rights in Sy.NO.76/2 has been rejected.
6]. The application filed by one Sri.A.M.Venkataramaiah and others, seeking occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.76/2 under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 has been considered wherein Sri.A.H.Anantharamaiah and 6 other claimants were conferred with occupancy rights.
7]. The application filed by the applicants/petitioner and his predecessors seeking occupancy rights under Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act has been rejected.
8]. The appeal filed before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 26.12.1963, conferring occupancy rights in favour of A.H.Anantharamaiah, father of Respondent No.4 and others has been rejected.
9]. Further, W.P.No.13102/1985 filed by the petitioner against the order of the Land Tribunal has also been dismissed.
5. The aforesaid legal proceedings clearly establishes that the petitioner/his predecessors/ ancestors have lost the legal battle before the various Forums/Courts relating to the land in question and the same is binding on the petitioner. In such circumstances, the order of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 restoring the name of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the revenue records cannot be held to be unjustifiable.
No exception can be found with the orders impugned. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR