IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.18831 OF 2006(LR) BETWEEN:
SRI UGRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
*SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs (a) BASAVARAJU S/O LATE UGRAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS (b) SHIVA KUMAR S/O LATE UGRAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS (c) SHANTHAVEERAMMA D/O LATE UGRAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS (a) TO (c) ARE RESIDING AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
(d) SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE UGRAMURTHY, W/O HUCCHANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHSANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
*AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 5.9.2011.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SR.COUNSEL FOR MS.INDUSHRI S.RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
PUTTABALAIAH (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRS;
1. SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O LATE PUTTABALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. DEVARAJU S/O LATE PUTTABALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE PUTTABALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. SRINATH @ KUMAR S/O LATE PUTTABALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT BENDONEGRAMA, CHANNARAYANADURGA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
5. BAIAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT DASALAKUNTE, CHANNARAYANADURGA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
6. SAROJAMMA W/O MURTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOVINDANAIKANAPALYA, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.
7. RATHNAMMA W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURA, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
8. YASHODAMMA W/O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT BELAGUMBA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.
9. VEENA W/O MANJANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT THUMBADI VILLAGE, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
10. SRILATHA MAJOR, RESIDING AT DOGGANAHALLI, CHANNARAYANADURGA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
(RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 10 ARE THE DAUGHTERS OF LATE PUTTABALAIAH) 11. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU.
12. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MS.NALINA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.K.VENKATAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R10 SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R11 & R12) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (11TH RESPONDENT) AT ANNEXURE-C AND ORDER DATED 23.11.2006 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.1096/2006 PASSED BY THE KAT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION VIZ. LAND MEASURING ABOUT 6 ACRES 25 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.59/3 OF OBALAPURA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant of land measuring 6 acres, 25 guntas in Survey No.59/3 of Obalapura Village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk. That he has been cultivating the land for the past four decades. He filed Form No.7 before the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur for grant of occupancy rights. The same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, wherein the appeal was rejected. Hence, the present petition.
2. Shri.M.S.Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner’s counsel contends that there is an error committed by the Assistant Commissioner, as well as the Appellate Tribunal. That even though the petitioner filed Form No.7, under Section – 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short ‘Act’), the Assistant Commissioner has considered it as an application under Section-77A of the said Act. He further pleaded that even on merits, the petitioner does not hold excess land as held by the authorities.
3. Smt.Nalina. K., learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 10 disputes the same. She contends that the application is beyond time. Hence, none of the proceedings stands validated. That there is no merit in this petition.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that the petitions require to be rejected. The petitioner claiming to be tenant filed an application in Form No.7, in terms of Section-48A of the Act in the year 1979. The last date as postulated, for accepting applications under Form No.7 was 1998. Apparently, the same has not been done within time. Therefore, filing of Form No.7 beyond the year 1979 is hit by limitation. The application was filed only in the year 1998 i.e., on 26.08.1998.
5. Further, the Assistant Commissioner considered Form No.7 filed by the petitioner as one filed under Section-77A of the Act. This understanding of law by the Assistant Commissioner is incorrect. Section-77A of the Act came into being w.e.f. 1.11.1998. The application was filed on 26.08.1998. There was no provision of law to accept such an application before 1.11.1998. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in considering the application as one filed under Section-77A of the Act, since the date the application was filed, Section-77A of the Act, was not on the statute. Therefore, the reasoning of the Assistant Commissioner is also beyond the authority.
6. Under these circumstances, when the application filed by the petitioner is grossly hit by delay, the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner’s counsel that the petition be considered on merit would not arise for consideration. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain the petition. Writ petition is rejected.
Rule discharged.
SD/- JUDGE JJ