IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.44230/2018 (LR) BETWEEN:
SRI V.R. DORESWAMY S/O. RAYAPPAGOWNDAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT THAGGALUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT -571 109 (BY SRI P. ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE HEAD QUARTERS ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND PRESCIRBED OFFICER (LAND AND REFORMS 7A) GUNDLUPET TALUK GUNDLUPET ... PETITIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 111.
2. THE TAHSILDAR GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 111.
3. SMT. J.KANNAMMAL W/O. LATE V.A. JAGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 4. SRI J.NANDAKUMAR S/O. LATE JAGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT PULLIMANTHOTAM GOVT. PRESS COLONY POST, COIMBATORE – 541 019.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, H.C.G.P. FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2017 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.718/2007 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in two weeks.
2. The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 28.07.2017 passed in Appeal No.718/2007 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘the KAT’ for short) vide Annexure-F to the petition. Admittedly, the said appeal was filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 herein impugning the order dated 16.08.2004 passed by respondent No.1 in L.R.F/62/99-2000, in considering the application filed by petitioner in form No.7A.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under:
The petitioner herein claims himself to be the tenant in possession and cultivation of the land bearing Sy.No.68/2 and Sy.No.69 situate at Tagalur Village, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajnagar District. The records would indicate that the application in Form No.7A was filed by him on 23.11.1988 vide Annexure- C claiming occupancy right in respect of the lands bearing Sy.No.68/2 measuring 1 Acre, 4 Guntas and Sy.No.69 measuring 3 Acres 4 Guntas situate at Tagalur Village, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajnagar District, wherein it is clearly stated that he was cultivating the aforesaid lands along with his brother Sri V.R.Ponnaswamy as a sub-tenant under him.
4. Initially, the application which was filed by the petitioner in form No.7A was considered by the competent authority i.e., respondent No.1 herein and occupancy right was granted in his favour by order dated 16.08.2004 in L.R.F/62/99-2000. However, the same was subject matter of challenge by respondents No.3 and 4 in Appeal No.718/2007, wherein they would contend that the petitioner herein was not a tenant of the aforesaid lands at any point of time and they would also bring to the notice of the KAT that there were several litigations between the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4, wherein issues are framed and evidence is recorded to consider whether the petitioner herein was in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question.
5. It is seen that in the suit which was filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.34/1993 for permanent injunction, he was not able to establish the fact that he was in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the said lands. Therefore, his prayer for permanent injunction is rejected by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Gundlupet, within whose jurisdiction, the said suit was instituted. It is also seen that in the suit filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 in O.S.No.1/2004 against the petitioner herein, the respondents No.3 and 4 have established the fact that the lands in question are in their possession and cultivation.
6. Admittedly, while considering the appeal filed by the respondents No.3 and 4, the KAT has appreciated the material available on record and has observed that the respondent No.1 herein has not properly appreciated the documents placed before it.
That it has also failed to notice the fact that the name of the petitioner is not seen in the RTC for the relevant period wherein he claimed tenancy right in his favour. Besides this, it is also observed that the application which is filed in Form No.7A itself would clearly indicate that there was no direct nexus between the petitioner and the landlord. The said fact is not appreciated by the respondent No.1 herein in the proceedings in L.R.F/62/99-2000 while passing the order in the said proceedings on 16.08.2004.
7. However, when the said order was subjected to challenge before the KAT, the KAT has rightly appreciated the aforesaid facts on record and thereafter, passed the impugned order setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.1 herein accepting the claim of respondents No.3 and 4, who are the appellants in the said proceedings. The reasons assigned for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of first respondent appears to be just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.
8. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no justifiable grounds are made out to interfere with the order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Authority, Bengaluru in Appeal No.718/2007.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ST