IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.34358/2012 & 42714/2012(LR-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI SOMASHEKARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SON OF LATE BORAIAH 2. SRI KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SON OF LATE BORAIAH 3. SRI JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS SON OF LATE BORAIAH 4. SRI PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS SON OF LATE BORAIAH ALL ARE RESIDING AT YELCHENAHALLI AMRUTHURU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT- 571 203 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S CHENNARAYA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KUNIGAL TALUK, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT 3. SRI HANUMAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 3(a) SMT. BORAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE HANUMAIAH 3(b) SRI HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON OF LATE HANUMAIAH 3(c) SRI RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SON OF LATE HANUMAIAH 3(d) SRI HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SON OF LATE HANUMAIAH 4. SRI NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SON OF LATE AMAVASE GOWDA
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI D.S.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a to d), R4, C/R5, R6 & R7) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS AND RELIEFS OF LIKE NATURE BY QUASHING THE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.5.2012 PASSED IN LRF(INA) 26/77-78 AND LRF(INA) 80/91-92 VIDE ANNEXURE-S PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT LAND TRIBUNAL, KUNIGAL AND SET ASIDE THE SAME.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These writ petitions are in challenge to the order dated 29.5.2012 passed in proceedings bearing No.LRF.INA.26/1977-78 and LRF.INA.80/1991-92 vide Annexure-S passed by the 2nd respondent – Land Tribunal, Kunigal.
2. Brief facts leading to these writ petitions according to petitioners are as under:
Petitioners herein are said to be sons of one Boraiah. According to them, their father was in unauthorized possession, cultivation and enjoyment of different portions of lands in Sy.Nos.46 and 47 of Jodihanumapura village, Amruthur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District. It is stated that, the petitioners have filed an application on 30.6.1991 under Section 7(4) of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, wherein their prayer was to register them as kathedars in respect of aforesaid lands; the said application was registered in No.LRF(INA) 80/1991-92 and was decided by order dated 26.5.1994 by the Land Tribunal, Kunigal, in granting occupancy right in their favour in respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos.47 and 46 i.e., an extent of 6 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No.46 and an extent of 7 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.47 in favour of all the 4 petitioners in different extents, which would cover the total extent available in the aforesaid two survey numbers.
3. It is stated that the said order dated 26.5.1994 passed by the Land Tribunal was contrary to the direction issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.35890/1993, dated 18.3.1994, which was filed by one Hanumaiah (the eldest son of Amase Gowda and brother of respondents 4 to 7 in this proceedings). The said writ petition was filed contending that the application which was filed by him is pending consideration in proceedings bearing No.LRF INA.26/1977-78 but, the application of the petitioners herein in LRF.INA.80/1991-92 is considered and in fact, both the applications should be clubbed together and disposed of. It is in this background, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said writ petition in directing the Land Tribunal to club both the proceedings in LRF.INA.26/1977-78 and LRF.INA.80/1991-92 and to decide them simultaneously. Since the Land Tribunal did not take up LRF.INA.26/1977-78 along with LRF.INA.80/1991-92 and said LRF.INA.80/1991-92 was decided by a separate order dated 26.5.1994, contempt proceedings was initiated by Hanumaiah, the brother of respondents 4 to 7 in CCC.No.1104/1994, wherein the Land Tribunal conceded to the mistake it had committed and agreed to take up the other application in LRF.INA.26/1977- 78 together with LRF.INA.80/1991-92.
4. In the meanwhile, in addition to contempt proceedings in CCC.1104/1994, Hanumaiah the eldest son of Amase Gowda also preferred WP.No.24241/1994 which subsequently came to be dismissed as infructuous in the light of the Land Tribunal undertaking before the Contempt Court in agreeing to take up both the matters together. Accordingly, both the matters were taken up together and were disposed of by order dated 29.5.2012 where the application in LRF.INA.26/1977-78 filed by Hanumaiah s/o Amase Gowda is accepted, while doing so, the application filed by the petitioners herein in LRF.INA.80/1992-92 is rejected. It is the said order which is under challenge in these writ petitions.
5. In these writ petitions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the application filed by petitioners on 30.6.1991 under the Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, (‘Inams Abolition Act’, for short) was admittedly in time. That they were in fact in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of said lands from the time of their father Boraiah, who was initially cultivating the same in or around 1980 and accordingly, the said application was filed. However, the petitioners are not in a position to state the reason as to why the said application was filed under Section 7(4) of the Inams Abolition Act, when they cannot trace their title or possession/cultivation to any provision of the said Act. In this regard, the learned counsel for petitioners would submit that though the application filed by the petitioners was under a wrong provision, still they had a right to seek occupancy right from the hands of the Land Tribunal since it was considering such applications. He also tried to assert that the application filed by Hanumaiah s/o Amase Gowda (brother of respondents 4 to 7) is erroneous, inasmuch as he has filed the application in the year 1992.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 would bring to the notice of this Court that the averments made in the writ petitions are incomplete. According to him, the facts which led to these writ petitions are as under:
He would take this Court through the original record in proceedings bearing No.LRF.INA.80/1992-92 and LRF.INA.26/1977-78, which was secured by this Court. where at page Nos.691 to 614 there is reference to 3 Sale Deeds which are executed in favour of Amase Gowda (father of respondents 3 to 7) who has acquired several lands, which are as under:
1) Sy.No.1/5 measuring 32 guntas 2) Sy.No.2/6 measuring 23 guntas, 3) Sy.No.11/2 measuring 30 guntas, 4) Sy.No.8/4 measuring 1 acre, 5) Sy.No.18 measuring 1 acre, 6) Sy.No.30/2 measuring 1 acre, 7) Sy.No.31/2 measuring 30 guntas, 8) Sy.No.37/4 measuring 10 guntas, 9) Sy.No.37/7 measuring 10 guntas, 10) Sy.No.46 measuring 6 acres 38 guntas and 11) Sy.No.47 measuring 7 acres 08 guntas.
7. According to learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7, Amase Gowda had purchased aforesaid lands from various persons, who had secured title to the same from the original inamdar Hiriyanna @ Hiriyanna Sharma. With this, he would trace title of Amase Gowda to the aforesaid extents of lands from minor inamdars. He would also state that after coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act, Amase Gowda filed an application in Form No.1 seeking to register him as occupant of aforesaid lands which was registered in Case No.78/1959-60 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, which came to be dismissed by issuing endorsement dated 13.1.1964 vide Annexure-D and the final order in respect of the same dated 8.12.1965 is at Annexure-C.
8. It is stated that said order dated 8.12.1965 was challenged in Revenue Appeal No.2283/1966 in the Court of Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on 31.10.1968. By then, it is stated that Amase Gowda had died. Hence, the legal heirs of Amase Gowda (respondents 3 to 7 herein and others) filed WP.No.7386/1969, which came to be disposed of on 10.11.1972 by the Division Bench of this Court, where by setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal the Division Bench remanded the matter back to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. In the remanded matter, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of legal heirs of Amase Gowda by order dated 16.5.1980 and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration for the reason that, by then the Courts of Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition were abolished and the power was vested with the Land Tribunal to consider the same.
9. In the meanwhile, it is stated that respondents 3 to 7 noticed that there is one more rival claim to the lands belonging to them from the petitioners herein in proceedings bearing No.LRF.INA.80/1991-92. Hence, they approached the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP.No.35890/1993, which was allowed in directing the Land Tribunal to take up the application of respondent No.3 (legal heir of original applicant Amase Gowda and brother of respondents 4 to 7 herein) pending in proceedings No.LRF.INA.26/1977-78 along with the application filed by the petitioners in No.LRF.INA.80/1991-92. However, it is stated that the order passed in WP.No.35890/1993 was not adhered to by the Land Tribunal, instead, it had independently decided the proceedings initiated by the petitioners herein in No.LRF.INA.80/199-92 by order dated 26.5.1994, which necessitated deceased respondent No.3 to approach the Contempt Court in CCC.1104/1994, where the Chairman of Land Tribunal, Kunigal appeared before the Contempt Court and tried to convince the Court that the order dated 26.5.1994 is only an interim order and not a final order. He also undertook to club both the matters in No.LRF.INA.26/1977-78 as well as LRF.INA.80/1991-92 and to dispose of the same by common order.
10. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 would also state that there is an attempt on the part of the petitioners herein to allege that Hanumaiah - respondent No.3 (legal heir of Amase Gowda) filed an application in Form No.7A seeking occupancy right in respect of very same lands, for which he would state that said Hanumaiah, who was frustrated by then in not getting the relief before any authority was mislead to file an application in form No.7A for the lands which were already covered under an application in proceedings No.LRF.INA.26/1977-78. In fact, though such application was filed in Form No.7A, the same was not pursued and no orders were passed thereon. In the meanwhile, Hanumaiah, the person who filed said application also died and thereafter, the legal heirs of Amase Gowda respondents 4 to 7 herein and the legal heirs of Hanumaiah, 3rd respondent are pursuing this matter.
11. According to learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7, subsequent to the order being passed in contempt proceedings, both the applications (the application of petitioners as well as that of respondents 3 to 7) were heard together and common order came to be passed. In addition to that, he would also try to bring to the notice of this Court, the hollowness in the claim of the petitioners in these proceedings, wherein he would draw the attention of this Court to the statement filed by petitioners in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, where in the statement which is filed by them through their counsel on 8.6.2007 there is reference to admission on the part of petitioners that they were unauthorized occupants of lands in question from 1983-84 to 1995-96. That, at paragraphs 3 and 5 they would state that they are agricultural coolies and they have been in possession and cultivation of the lands from 1983-
84 and accordingly, they have secured orders in RRT.MR.355/2003-04 to continue their names in revenue records from 1995-96 to the date on which the objections are filed on 8.6.2007. However, said statements would go contrary to the material on record.
12. According to learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7, though in the objections statement, the petitioners would state that they are agricultural coolies, that their application should be considered under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the application filed by them is under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act, which is without any basis. Even otherwise, when the application at page No.416 in the original records of Land Tribunal is looked into, it would indicate that first of the petitioners’ has affixed his signature in English and other 3 petitioners have affixed their signatures in Kannada and the said application filed by the petitioners is dated 30.6.1991. However, in the bottom of the application the date of receipt of said application is shown as 19.10.1991 thereby clearly indicating that said application is wrongly filed under wrong provision and also beyond the period of limitation. Further, when the signatures of very same persons in the statement of objections filed before the Land Tribunal, which is at Annexure - R1 to these writ petitions are seen, it is in English. It is surprising to note that the petitioners herein would call themselves as agricultural coolies and the manner in which they have affixed their signatures would clearly defy their own statement in the objections.
13. When the material on record as shown by the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 is looked into, it would indicate that there is an attempt on the part of the petitioners herein to stake wrongful claim against the property which rightfully belongs to respondents 3 to 7, whose grand father/father, Amase Gowda has purchased the same under 3 registered sale deeds in or around 1950 from the successor in title to original inamdar Hiriyanna @ Hiriaynna Sharma and his brother Hasige Neelakantaiah. In fact, as against the legitimate claim of respondents 3 to 7, the petitioners herein, who are total strangers to lands in question have pursued the litigation by filing false and fraudulent application before the Land Tribunal which is rightly rejected by the order impugned.
14. In that view of the matter, this Court would dismiss these petitions by imposing cost of Rs.1,00,000/- each on the petitioners for the reason that, though they are educated and well placed in society, they have tried to project themselves as agricultural coolies to misuse the benevolent provisions of the government to stake wrongful claim against the original owners of the lands, who have acquired the same for valuable consideration; tried to create hurdle in enjoyment of the lands which are purchased by them in continuing an unrighteous litigation from 1991 to this day and consequently, made them to loose enormous amount of money to save their own property. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that cost of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on each of the petitioners is token in nature and if it has to be calculated with reference to the amount of loss and inconvenience caused to respondent Nos.3 to 7, this Court may have to increase it at least by 10 times against each of the petitioners. However, this Court would retain it as nominal and would restrict it only to Rs.1,00,000/- each against petitioners 1 to 4 which they shall deposit in this Court within 30 days, failing which the same shall be recovered after arresting them and sending them to civil prison until cost is paid. As and when cost is paid, 75% of that shall be paid to respondents 3 to 7 and remaining 25 % shall be appropriated to the registry.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-