Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1029 (KAR)

B. CHANDRAMOULI v. RAMAKRISHNAREDDY

2014-12-01

B.V.NAGARATHNA

body2014
ORDER Petitioner has challenged Annexure-E issued by 6th respondent, Tahsildar, Anekal which is stated to be pursuant to proceeding in LRF/HTC/2848/7576 and LRF/HTC/1029/7576, insofar as Sy.No.5 measuring 31 guntas at Gulimangala Village, Anekal Taluk is concerned. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that one Sri.Krishnamurthy i.e. the petitioner’s father was the owner of the land in Sy.No.5 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas; that the father of respondent Nos.1 to 4 Sri. Nanjareddy had filed Form No.7 in respect of Sy.No.5 to an extent of 31 guntas; that proceedings in LRF/HTC/2848 & 1029/7576 is stated to have taken place but the impugned Form No.10 has been issued without either the said Nanjareddy having filed Form No.7 nor any order having been passed on that application and therefore, it is contended that the issuance of Form No.10 is not supported by an order of the Land Tribunal and hence fraudulent. It is under the aforesaid premise that the petitioner has sought quashing of Form No.10, a copy of which is at Annexure-E to the writ petition. 3. Statement of objections have been filed to the writ petitions by respondent No.1 contending that petitioner’s father late Sri.Nanjareddy had filed Form No.7 in respect of the land in question and that the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights to an extent of 31 guntas in the said survey number i.e. on the basis of the fact that Nanjareddy was in occupation of the land in question and that his name was entered in the revenue records including the RTCs right from the year 196869 onwards. That fact has been mentioned in the depositions with regard to proceeding in LRF/HTC/1029/7576; that evidence has not been contradicted by the petitioner that LRF/HTC/1029/7576 was in respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos.41 and 4. This Court has also taken note of the contentions with regard to the grant of 31 guntas in Sy.No.5 to late Nanjareddy. Therefore, placing reliance on various documents, respondent No.1 has sought dismissal of the writ petitions. 4. The State has also filed objections on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and perused the material on record as well as original records made available by learned HCGP. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and perused the material on record as well as original records made available by learned HCGP. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Form No.10, which is impugned in these writ petitions has been issued without there being any order to that effect; that in LRF/HTC/1029/7576 the Land Tribunal did not grant any occupancy rights to Nanjareddy. Even in the absence of such a grant of occupancy rights, late Nanjareddy was able to obtain impugned Form No.10 and therefore, the said Form No.10 has to be quashed as it is without the support of any order being passed by the Land Tribunal and therefore, is illegal. In support of this submission, learned counsel for petitioner also contended that there is no order passed by the Land Tribunal with regard to Sy.No.5 measuring 31 guntas i.e. land in question as no Form No.7 was filed by Nanjareddy seeking grant of occupancy rights to that extent. He therefore contended that late Nanjareddy had obtained Form No.10 fraudulently and therefore, it may be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 by placing reliance on statement of objections and documents produced in support of the statement of objections, contended that the writ petitions are wholly misconceived and are filed with an oblique motive; the petitioner is none other than a the retired Village Accountant and it is difficult to believe that he was not aware about the order of the Land Tribunal. The fact that order No.LRF.ATC.2848, 1029/7576 is mentioned in the prayer column, it shows that there was such a proceeding. According to respondent Nos.1 to 4, the petitioner has illegally removed Form No.10 from the original records and has filed this petition and that the writ petitions are without merit and have to be dismissed. 8. In response, learned counsel for petitioner has stated that the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 are incorrect as for the first time, he has stated that order of the Land Tribunal which is the basis for issuance of Form No.10, has been removed from the records, by the petitioner. 9. 8. In response, learned counsel for petitioner has stated that the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 are incorrect as for the first time, he has stated that order of the Land Tribunal which is the basis for issuance of Form No.10, has been removed from the records, by the petitioner. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record as well as the original records, the following aspects are noted. On perusal of the original records, it is noted that late Nanjareddy had been issued notice dated 12.1.1981 by the Land Tribunal in LRF/HTC/2848/7576 which is marked as Ex.P2 in the records. That notice directs him to appear before the Tribunal on 23.1.1981 to adjudicate on Sy.No.5 of Gulimangala Village. Ex.P3 is another notice dated 10.7.1980 which has been issued by the Land Tribunal in LRF/HTC/1029/7576. That notice directs late Nanjareddy to appear before the Tribunal on 25.2.1981. That notice is issued for the purpose of adjudicating with regard to Sy.No.41 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas and Sy.No.4 measuring 2 acre 23 guntas. At this stage itself, it is inferred that for the purpose of adjudication of Form No.7 notices were ordered and that there were two independent proceedings namely, LRF/HTC/2848/7576 which is in respect of land bearing Sy.No.5 and LRF/HTC/1029/7576 which is in respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos.41 and 4. These notices are not issued suo motu by the Land Tribunal. On a perusal of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 which have been amended pursuant to the Amendment Act of 1974, it is only when an application is filed by a person declaring himself to be a tenant, that the Land Tribunal would have to conduct an enquiry into the said application. That application has to be filed in Form No.7. Therefore, the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to initiate suo motu proceedings, calling upon tenants for the grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal gets the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the tenancy issue only when a person declares himself to be a tenant and files application in Form No.7. The fact that these notices are found in the original records as Exs.P2 and P3 establishes that there were two proceedings initiated by the Land Tribunal i.e. LRF/HTC/2848/7576 in respect of Sy.No.5 and LRF/HTC/1029/7576 which is in respect of Sy.Nos.41 and 4. The fact that these notices are found in the original records as Exs.P2 and P3 establishes that there were two proceedings initiated by the Land Tribunal i.e. LRF/HTC/2848/7576 in respect of Sy.No.5 and LRF/HTC/1029/7576 which is in respect of Sy.Nos.41 and 4. Therefore, the contention that there was no Form No.7 filed by late Nanjareddy is wholly without basis. 10. The next contention is with regard to there being no order granting occupancy rights of 31 guntas in Sy.No.5 i.e. land in question in favour of late Nanjareddy. Of course, the order granting occupancy rights has not been produced by the petitioner nor by respondent No.1. Infact, it is the case of the petitioner that in the absence of there being Form No.7, there could not have been any order passed by the Land Tribunal. Indeed, insofar as filing of Form No.7 by Nanjareddy is concerned, the above inference is already been drawn which is contrary to petitioner’s contention. The question is as to whether that proceeding resulted in granting occupancy right of the land in question to late Nanjareddy. Though the order granting occupancy right is also not produced by any of the parties and is not a part of the record which is also admitted by learned HCGP, nevertheless there are certain statements and references made to the grant of occupancy rights of the land in question which are produced by respondent No.1 along with the statement of objections which may be referred to. 11. In WP No.29439/1994 which was disposed of by this Court on 14.9.2000, the submission of the petitioners therein is recorded to the effect that 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.5 had already been granted and that the remaining land was 1 acre 32 guntas in respect of which the petitioners therein had sought for grant of occupancy rights. That writ petition was filed by none other than the children of Lakshmaiah Reddy who is the brother of Nanjareddy, the cousins of respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein. In that writ petition, a direction was sought to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.5/1 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in LRF/HTC/1001/7576. This Court, by order dated 14.9.2000 directed the Tribunal to consider the application of the petitioners therein and pass an order in accordance with law. In that writ petition, a direction was sought to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.5/1 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in LRF/HTC/1001/7576. This Court, by order dated 14.9.2000 directed the Tribunal to consider the application of the petitioners therein and pass an order in accordance with law. A copy of that order is produced as AnnexureR2 to the statement of objections of respondent No.1. Annexure R3 is an application given by the petitioners in WP No.29439/1994, to the Land Tribunal dated 30.6.1994, stating that 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.5 had been granted and the balance land had to be granted to them in LRF/HTC/1001/7576. Even in their petition filed before the Land Tribunal in LRF/HTC/1001/7576, the aforesaid two persons have stated that the Land Tribunal had granted 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.5 in favour of late Nanjareddy. That petition is at AnnexureR4. AnnexureR5 is a copy of the deposition of C.L.Jayarama Reddy in LRF/HTC/1001/7576 on 8.3.2002 stating that in Sy.No.5, 31 guntas had already been granted to his paternal uncle Nanjareddy. As against this deposition, no crossexamination has been made by the petitioner herein who was also a respondent in that proceeding and his signature is also found at the end of that deposition dated 8.3.2002. The Land Tribunal, by order dated 18.5.2002, granted occupancy rights of 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.5 to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas as sought for by them. A copy of that order is produced as AnnexureR9 to the writ petition. Petitioner’s counsel has stated that no challenge has been made to that order. 12. On a perusal of these aforesaid documents, it is established that an extent of 31 guntas in Sy.No.5 was indeed granted to late Nanjareddy. That apart, the name of Lakshmaiah Reddy who is the brother of late Nanjareddy appears in the RTC since the year 196970 onwards. The extent mentioned in those RTCs is 2 acres 30 guntas. On perusal of Annexure A2 produced by the petitioner, it is noted that in respect of Sy.No.5, the name of late Nanjareddy in respect of 31 guntas has been entered pursuant to M.R.2/198384 which is noted in Column No.9 of the RTC and in Column No.10. The said entry continues in the RTC of the subsequent years also. On perusal of Annexure A2 produced by the petitioner, it is noted that in respect of Sy.No.5, the name of late Nanjareddy in respect of 31 guntas has been entered pursuant to M.R.2/198384 which is noted in Column No.9 of the RTC and in Column No.10. The said entry continues in the RTC of the subsequent years also. Therefore, even if the order of the Land Tribunal in LRF/HTC/2848/7576 has not been produced by either the petitioner nor respondent Nos.1 to 4, it cannot be said that there was no such order. It cannot also be said that no Form No.7 was filed by late Nanjareddy, father of respondent Nos.1 to 4 as the notice at Ex.P2 is issued pursuant to the filing of Form No.7. The fact that M.R.2/198384 is reflected in the RTC would imply that it is subsequent to the issuance of Form No.10 issued in the name of Nanjareddy. In fact that Form No.10 includes also Sy.Nos.4 and 41. Prima facie, this is also traceable to Ex.P3 which is a notice issued by the Land Tribunal in LRF/HTC/1029/7576. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that late Nanjareddy did not file Form No.7 and that no proceeding in respect of that Form No.7 took place and that in the absence of order of the Land Tribunal, Form No.10 was fraudulently issued in his name, is false. 13. That apart, Form No.10 itself has been issued more than nearly 3 decades ago. The petitioner, for the first time, approaches this Court in 2013 contending that Form No.10 is fraudulently issued. The delay in approaching this Court has not been explained. The writ petitions could have been dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches but the notice having been issued to the parties and the voluminous pleadings that have come on record and the summoning of the original records has led to the passing of the order on merits also. 14. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner who is a retired Village Accountant, would have been unaware of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioner has illegally removed the order of the Land Tribunal seems to be more plausible. The petitioner, when he filed the writ petitions was about 67 years old. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioner has illegally removed the order of the Land Tribunal seems to be more plausible. The petitioner, when he filed the writ petitions was about 67 years old. The filing of these writ petitions is an instance of an idle mind being a devil’s workshop. The writ petitions are hence dismissed with cost of `10,000/payable to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, IA.2/14 and IA.3/14 would not arise for consideration and the same are ordered to be filed.