Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1372 (KAR)

H. S. Basavaraj v. Land Tribunal, Ramanagara Town

2013-12-05

H.BILLAPPA

body2013
ORDER 1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 28.1.2009, passed by the third respondent in Case No. LRF: CR-412/2007-08 vide Annexure-D and the order dated 8.3.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ramanagara Taluk, in LRF. INA (B) 19/81-82 vide Annexure-H in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. 2. By the impugned order at Annexure-D, the third respondent has rejected the report of the Tahsildar and has held that the order of the Land Tribunal in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village cannot be interfered with. Therefore, this writ petition. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are: The father of the respondents 5 and 6 late Poojari Rudraiah had filed application for regrant of land in respect of Sy.Nos.116/7, 116/8, 116/9 and 141 of Bannikuppe village vide Annexure-B. There was no claim in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. LRF.No.58/1975-76 was disposed of directing Poojari Rudrappa to approach Special Deputy Commissioner (Inam Abolition). Thereafter, Poojari Rudraiah filed another application before the Land Tribunal, Ramanagara Taluk, in LRF.No.19/1981-82. In the said proceedings, the joint statement of Poojari Rudraiah and his brother Shivarudraiah was recorded. Thereafter, the Tribunal by its order dated 8.3.1982 has held that the applicant and his brother are entitled for occupancy rights under section 5 of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act 1955. It is stated, no application was filed for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. Inspite of that, occupancy rights have been granted which is wholly without jurisdiction. The members of the Land Tribunal have acted with mala fide intention. 4. It is stated, on the complaint of Hejjala villagers, the Tahasildar has submitted his report to the Assistant Commissioner regarding illegal grant. The Assistant Commissioner conducted an enquiry which revealed fraud. The petitioners came to know about the fraudulent grant in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner failed to remove the names of Rudraiah and his family members in the RTC pertaining to Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28.1.2009 has rejected the request of the villagers. Therefore, this writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.1.2009 vide Annexure-D and the order dated 8.3.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ramanagara Taluk, in case No.LRF.No.19/1981-82 vide Annexure-H. 5. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28.1.2009 has rejected the request of the villagers. Therefore, this writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.1.2009 vide Annexure-D and the order dated 8.3.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ramanagara Taluk, in case No.LRF.No.19/1981-82 vide Annexure-H. 5. The respondent No.10 has filed statement of objections contending that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. The petitioners have no right, title or interest in the property and they are not the aggrieved persons. The relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. The order passed by the Tribunal in LRF.No.19/1981-82 has attained finality. The respondent No.7 has sold the property to the respondent No.10 through registered sale-deed dated 5.8.1993. After the lapse of nearly 30 years, the petitioners have challenged the order passed in LRF.No.19/1981-82. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. It is stated, Sri. H.M. Shankarappa, the father of the first petitioner had initiated proceedings in RRT.CR.205:88-89 in respect of the land in question before the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara, requesting to remove the name of Sri. Rudraiah from the revenue records on the ground that no order has been passed by the Tribunal. The Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara, has rejected the request of H.M. Shankarappa and the name of Rudraiah has been entered in the revenue records. Thereafter, H.M. Shankarappa has made representation dated 1.6.2007 along with others suppressing the order dated 2.6.1989. 7. It is stated, Sri. Shivarudraiah and Sri. Rudraiah were cultivating the lands bearing Sy.Nos.116, 141 of Bannikuppe village and Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village, Ramanagara. The said Shivarudraiah and Rudraiah and their ancestors were cultivating the lands since many years. Initially, Sri. Rudraiah initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Mysore Inam Abolition Act, 1955, in respect of Sy.Nos.116 and 141 of Bannikuppe Village, Ramanagara. However, the land in Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village was not included. All the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village are standing in the name of Shivarudraiah and Rudraiah. Thereafter, on 19.6.1975, Rudraiah filed application before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.116/2, 116/1, 116 and 141 of Bannikuppe village, Ramanagara and Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village as per Annexure‘R2’. All the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village are standing in the name of Shivarudraiah and Rudraiah. Thereafter, on 19.6.1975, Rudraiah filed application before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.116/2, 116/1, 116 and 141 of Bannikuppe village, Ramanagara and Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village as per Annexure‘R2’. On 22.9.1976, the Land Tribunal passed an order holding that the applicant is required to approach the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition. On 8.3.1982, the land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Shivarudraiah and Rudraiah in LRF.INA(B)/19/1981-82 in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. 8. Thereafter, on 5.8.1993, Shivarudraiah has executed a registered saledeed in respect of a portion of the land in favour of the respondent No.10. Based on that, the revenue records have been changed in the name of the respondent No.10 and she is in possession of the lands. 9. It is stated, the petitioners have not taken any action for the last 30 years. Thereafter, the petitioners without any right, title or interest in the property have started harassing the respondent No.10. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 28.1.2009 has rejected the request of the petitioners holding that the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in LRF.INA(B)/19/1981-82. It is therefore, the respondent No.10 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the villagers have given representation as per Annexure A1 and a report has been submitted by the Tahasildar stating that Shivarudraiah and Rudraiah have created documents in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village and there are no documents regarding granting of land in favour of Shivarudraiah and Rudraiah. The Assistant Commissioner without properly considering the report of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Inspector has rejected the request of the petitioners. The report of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Inspector clearly indicate that the records relating to Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village have been created. Inviting my attention to Annexure ‘B’, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Rudraiah had filed application claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.141, 116/7, 116/8 and 116/9 of Bannikuppe village under Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act 1955. There is no mention of Sy.No.49 in the application. Inviting my attention to Annexure ‘B’, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Rudraiah had filed application claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.141, 116/7, 116/8 and 116/9 of Bannikuppe village under Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act 1955. There is no mention of Sy.No.49 in the application. The Tribunal by its order dated 22.9.1976 has directed Rudraiah to approach the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition and closed the proceedings. Thereafter, Rudraiah has filed one more application in LRF No.INA(B)/19/1981-82 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.116, 116/7, 116/8, 116/9 and 141 of Bannikuppe village. Subsequently, Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village has been inserted. Form No.7 filed before the Land Tribunal was not maintainable. Inspite of that, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights recording joint statement of Rudraiah and Shivarudraiah which is illegal and without authority of law. Further he submitted that Form No.7 cannot be maintained in respect of Inam lands. The order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. He also submitted that when application filed on 18.12.1970 as per Annexure-B was pending, Rudraiah could not have filed second application. Therefore, the subsequent application was not maintainable. He also submitted that though there is delay, as fraud has been played, the writ petition can be maintained. He placed reliance on the decision reported in (2008) 151 PLR page 496. 11. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent No.10 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. There is inordinate delay of nearly 30 years in approaching the court and therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Further he submitted that the first petitioner’s father Shankarappa had filed application claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. It came to be rejected on the ground that occupancy rights are already granted in favour of Poojari Rudraiah. He also submitted that the father of the first petitioner is one of the signatories to the representations at Annexures‘A1 and ‘A3’, and he is not a party to the writ petition. Further he submitted that the petitioners 2 to 9 have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. They have no subsisting right or interest in the property. They are not rival claimants. Inspite of that, they have filed this writ petition which is not maintainable. Further he submitted that the petitioners 2 to 9 have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. They have no subsisting right or interest in the property. They are not rival claimants. Inspite of that, they have filed this writ petition which is not maintainable. He also submitted that when Annexure-B was made by Rudraiah, the jurisdiction was conferred on the Special Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Abolition Act and therefore, he was directed to approach the Special Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the Act has been amended conferring jurisdiction on the Land Tribunal. The impugned order at Annexure‘H’ has been passed by the Land Tribunal and it had jurisdiction. He also submitted that though in Annexure-B Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village has not been included, in the application filed before the Land Tribunal Sy.No.49 has been included claiming occupancy rights. The Tribunal recording the statement of Rudraiah and his brother Shivarudraiah, has granted occupancy rights which is perfectly justified in law. He also submitted that the order has been passed by the Tribunal on 8.3.1982 and the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2011 i.e., after the lapse of nearly 30 years. Further he submitted that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, premium has been paid and the names of Rudraiah and his brother Shivarudraiah have been entered in the revenue records. On 5.8.1993, a portion of the land has been sold in favour of the respondent No.10. It is only in the year 2007, the petitioners and others have given representation. There is inordinate delay of nearly 30 years in approaching this Court. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. He placed reliance on the decisions of this Court reported in ILR 2009 Karnataka page 1783, ILR 2008 Karnataka page 4091 and unreported decision of this court in W.A.No.430/2010 connected with Misc.W.No.1622/2010. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders do not call for interference. 12. The learned Government Pleader supported the impugned orders and submitted that there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court and the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. 13. The respondent No.1, who is party-in-person, submitted that the impugned orders are illegal and cannot be sustained in law. 14. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. 13. The respondent No.1, who is party-in-person, submitted that the impugned orders are illegal and cannot be sustained in law. 14. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned orders at Annexures-D and H call for interference? 16. It is relevant to note, Rudraiah, the father of the respondents 5 and 6, had filed application under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.141, 116/7, 116/8, 116/9 of Bannikuppe village in LRF.No.58/197576. The Tribunal, by its order dated 22.9.1976, has directed Rudraiah to approach the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams Abolition) and the proceedings have been closed. Thereafter, Rudraiah has filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.116/7, 116/8, 116/9 and 141 of Bannikuppe village and Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village as per Annexure‘R2’. The Tribunal, by its order dated 8.3.1982, has granted occupancy rights in favour of Rudraiah and his brother Shivarudraiah under section 5 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, 1955 in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village and Sy.Nos.141 and 116 of Bannikuppe village. 17. Thereafter, in the year 2007, the petitioners have given representations as per Annexures‘A1’ to ‘A4’. The Tahasildar has secured the report from the Revenue Inspector. Along with his report the matter has been sent to Assistant Commissioner for his consideration. The Assistant Commissioner i.e., the third respondent by his order dated 28.1.2009, has rejected the request of the petitioners on the ground that the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Rudraiah in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village cannot be interfered with. The petitioners have preferred revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 15.11.2010, has issued endorsement stating that it is a matter to be resolved by the High Court. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged many grounds regarding illegality, maintainability of the application and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to pass the impugned order. He also submitted that fraud vitiates everything and therefore, delay does not matter in this case. 19. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No.10 submitted that the delay and locus standi of the petitioners is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition. 20. He also submitted that fraud vitiates everything and therefore, delay does not matter in this case. 19. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No.10 submitted that the delay and locus standi of the petitioners is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition. 20. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.10. The impugned order has been passed in the year 1982 i.e., on 8.3.1982. Thereafter, the father of the first petitioner has approached the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara, to remove the name of Rudraiah in the pahani in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 2.6.1989 as per Annexure‘R1’ has rejected the request of the first petitioner’s father. It has become final. Thereafter, nothing has been done. It is only in the year 2007, the petitioners and others have given representations as per Annexures‘A1’ to ‘A4’ stating that the land is not granted in favour of Rudraiah and the documents have been created and to take action regarding illegalities. Pursuant to that, the Tahasildar has secured the report from the Revenue Inspector. Thereafter, along with his report, the matter has been sent to the Assistant Commissioner for his consideration. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 28.1.2009 has rejected the request of the petitioners on the ground that the order passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village in favour of Rudraiah cannot be interfered with. The Deputy Commissioner has directed the petitioners to approach this Court. Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed in the year 2011. Annexure-F reveals that H.M. Shankarappa, the father of the first petitioner had filed application claiming occupancy rights and it has been rejected. He has signed the representations, but he is not a party to the proceedings. Through his son, the writ petition has been filed. The petitioners 2 to 9 have no subsisting interest in the property. They are not applicants before the Tribunal. They are not claiming any right in the property. But claiming that they are devotees, that too, after the lapse of several decades they have filed this writ petition. It is needless to say that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. Apart from this, in W.A.No.430/2010 connected with Misc.W.No.1622/2010, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows regarding the delay: “6. But claiming that they are devotees, that too, after the lapse of several decades they have filed this writ petition. It is needless to say that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. Apart from this, in W.A.No.430/2010 connected with Misc.W.No.1622/2010, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows regarding the delay: “6. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record. It is clear from the material on record that order of the Tribunal which is impugned in this writ petition filed on 25.05.2009 is dated 24.12.1981. The averment made in the petition does not make out any satisfactory explanation to condone the delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The material on record would further show that after the Land Tribunal passed the order on 24.12.1981, Form No.10 has been issued and entry in the revenue records has been made in favour of third respondent in the writ petition. 8. The material on record would further show that no material whatsoever is produced to show that the appellants are paying land revenue tax in respect of the said land, obviously they would not have paid the tax. The entry in the records has also been changed in the name of third respondent. It is well settled that when the petitioners approach this Court after inordinate delay of nearly 28 years, it is for him to give sufficient cause for the delay and latches on the part of the petitioners and no averment whatsoever is made in the writ petition regarding latches and delay. Apart from averring that no notice has been issued to the petitioners, when the petitioners is guilty of latches, question of considering the case on merits would not arise. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and it does not suffer from any infirmity as to call for interference in this intra Court appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.” 21. In Smt. SARASWATHI SHETTY vs. Smt. LAKSHMI @ BOMMI & Others, reported in ILR 2009 KAR. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and it does not suffer from any infirmity as to call for interference in this intra Court appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.” 21. In Smt. SARASWATHI SHETTY vs. Smt. LAKSHMI @ BOMMI & Others, reported in ILR 2009 KAR. page 1783, this Court has held that the explanation offered in seeking to challenge the order of the Tribunal after 32 years is not tenable and cannot be entertained. No relief can be given to the petitioner who approaches the Court after inordinate delay. 22. Similarly, in SMITA & Another vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, By its SECRETARY, Revenue Department & Others reported in ILR 2008 KAR. page 4091, this Court has held that the writ petition presented after the lapse of nearly 29 years cannot be entertained. 23. It is clear, the delay needs to be viewed seriously. In the present case, the petitioners have approached the Court after the lapse of nearly 30 years. The first petitioner’s father was aware of the order in the year 1989 itself. The land has been sold in favour of the third parties. Their interest is created. In the circumstances, the writ petition suffers from delay and latches and it cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.