IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.43284 OF 2018 & WRIT PETITION NO. 3366 OF 2019 BETWEEN Vasantha, S/o Munivenkatappa, Aged 55 years, Venkatapura village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. ... PETITIONER (By Smt.K.K.THAYAMMA, ADV) AND 1. State of Karnataka, Represented by Revenue Secretary, Multistoried Building, Bangalore-01.
2. Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, M.S.Building, Bangalore-01.
3. A.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Appaji Rao, Since deceased by his LRs.
(a) Sri. N.Anand, Major, S/o late S.Nagaraj.
(b) Sri.N.K.Sunder Major, S/o late S.Nagaraj.
(c) N.Arvind Major, S/o late S.Nagaraj, Residing at No.28, 8th Cross, Venkatapura, Kormangala Post, Bengaluru-560034.
4. Sri.Munivenkatappa, S/o Muneerappa, Since deceased by his LRs.
(a) Sri.Sridhar Aged about 35 years S/o late Sukumar S/o Munivenkatappa (b) Sri.Kumar, Aged about 32 years S/o late Sukumar, S/o Munivenkatappa Residing at Venkatapura Koramangala post, Bengaluru-560034.
5. Sri.Kantharaju, Major, S/o Kaverappa, Residing at No.785, 2nd B Cross, Bhuvaneshwarinagar, Bengaluru-560095. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.JAYAKUMAR.S.PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADV. FOR R-3(B), SRI.B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN L.R.F.843/75-76 C/W L.R.F.NO.1114/74-75 DATED 23.3.2018 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-X AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein is claiming himself to be the son of one Munivenkatappa who is said to be the tenant in respect of land bearing Sy.No.48/11 of Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is stated that an application was filed by Munivenkatappa seeking occupancy right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.48/11 which was subject matter of proceedings in LRF 843/75-76 c/w LRF 1114/74-75. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the earlier round of litigation the application of Munivenkatappa seeking occupancy right to an extent of 18 guntas in land bearing Sy.No.48/11 was considered by order dated 28.9.1979 which according to petitioner was not subject matter of any other proceedings. Therefore, the said extent of land which was accepted as tenanted land of Munivenkatappa is available to the petitioner as his legal heir.
2. In the present writ petitions several averments are made in contending that Munivenkatappa had two wives. Out of 18 guntas of land available in Sy.No.48/11 of Jakkasandra village, the share of the petitioner was about 11 guntas which was in his possession and enjoyment after the death of Munivenkatappa pursuant to the order dated 28.9.1979 passed in LRF 1114/75-76 by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk. The grievance of the petitioner is that subsequently when the said proceedings in LRF 843/75-76 c/w LRF 1114/74-75 was taken up for reconsideration by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk, serious error has been committed in not issuing notice to the petitioner as legal heir of Munivenkatappa and his right to get himself registered as tenant to an extent of 11 guntas in Sy.No.48/11 is not considered, accordingly, a common order passed in LRF 843/75-76 c/w LRF 1114/74-75 on the file of Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk vide order dated 23.3.2018 is required to be quashed in these proceedings.
3. When these writ petitions had come up for consideration on earlier date of hearing, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader who took notice for respondents 1 and 2 to secure the original records in LRF 843/1975-76 and LRF 1114/74-75. When the said original records are looked into, the same would disclose that an application was filed by one Toti Chikkanna, S/o Devappa seeking occupancy right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.48/4 measuring to an extent of 2 acres 13 guntas, which is registered in LRF 843/75-76. In the said proceedings there is no reference to any application being filed by Munivenkatappa. Now coming to LRF 1114/74-75, it is seen that there is in fact an application in Form No.9 filed by Munivenkatappa whose father name is not referred to in the said application which would indicate that he filed the application in form No.7 on 29.11.1974 seeking occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.26 of Jakkasandra village to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas where he would state that his age is 50 years and he is in possession continuously of the said land for nearly 80 years and in column No.8 at the bottom of the said application he would state that he has been cultivating the land as tenant for 87 years. When page No.2 of the said application is looked into it deals with the other lands which are held by him. At column No.4 he would say that he was in possession of Sy.No.48/9 and he would initially right it as Sy.Nos.28/11. However, the said main Sy.No.28 is corrected as Sy.No.48. Whether the said correction is made on the date of filing the application on 29.11.1974 or subsequently is not coming forth. In any event the said extent is shown to be in his ownership. In the application filed in form No.7 on 29.11.1974 by Munivenkatappa, he has not sought for occupancy right in respect of said land and his prayer is confined to only Sy.No.26 measuring to 1 acre 20 guntas. This application was initially taken up by the Land Tribunal for consideration on 28.9.1979 wherein an enquiry was conducted and on looking into possession of the applicants with reference to various lands where they were said to be in cultivation, the same were considered for grant in their favour.
4. However, it is seen that the order dated 28.9.1979 in LRF 1114/1974-75 was subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.34193/1981 on the file of this Court where a co-ordinate bench has allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order dated 28.9.1979 in LRF 1114/74-75 in its entirety, for the reason that the Land Tribunal has not followed Rule 17(9) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. Therefore, the said matter requires reconsideration. It is in the said reconsidered proceedings the order impugned is passed on 23.3.2018, where at page 11 in the portion of speaking order, the second paragraph would read like this:
“Accordingly, claims of Munivenkatappa, S/o Muneerappa, the applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 Sri.Kantharaju who is the subsequent purchaser with respect to survey number 48/11 of Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 18 guntas in LRF 843/75-76 is hereby unanimously rejected.”
the said order is challenged on the ground that the present petitioner Vasantha who is the son of Munivenkatappa to whose share 11 guntas of land was given in the family partition is the subject mater of the proceedings in LRF 1114/74-75 where no notice was given to him and that said order is passed behind is back. Therefore, the same cannot be entertained and also on other grounds that the grant of land in favour of Munivenkatappa by order dated 28.9.1979 was not subject matter of challenge by the landlord Srinivas Rao, as such, the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the writ proceedings is not pertaining to the grant made in favour of Munivenkatappa. Under the circumstances, the order at Annexure X requires to be quashed.
5. After giving careful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the original records which are produced before the Court it is clearly seen that Munivenkatappa during his life time has not made any application for grant of occupancy right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.48/11 of Jakkasandra village. In that view of the matter, the question of considering the prayer of the petitioner in any manner on the ground that the earlier order passed in W.P.No.34193/1981 would not take away the right of grant of occupancy right in his favour also cannot be considered inasmuch as, by order dated 3.12.1984 passed in W.P.No.34193/1981, the order of Tribunal for not following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 17(9) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, as stated supra, has been set aside and it cannot be construed as it is with reference to only a portion thereof.
6. Therefore, in the aforesaid background, reconsideration of the application filed in LRF 1114/1974-75 by the Land Tribunal by setting aside the order impugned does not arise. Since the order impugned remains just and proper question of interfering with the same does not arise. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, I.A.No.1/2019 and I.A.No.2/2019 do not survive for consideration and accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp