Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 175 (KAR)

V. Muniyappa v. State of Karnataka

2016-02-19

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2016
ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The brief facts are that the petitioners are said to be the sons of late Venkatarayappa. Venkatarayappa was in possession of Shanbogi Service Inams Lands attached to the office of Shanbogh of Chikkanahalli, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, bearing Sy. No. 15 measuring 5 acres 9 guntas and Sy. No. 31 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas, both situated at Chikkanahalli Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. The said lands were in possession and enjoyment of late Venkatarayappa and his sons were paying yearly rent or wara gutta for the last several years prior to 1-3-1974 to his landlord. 2. Shanboge Subanna, the grandson of Dasappa, was the Baravardar or the authorised holder of the village office, namely, Shanbhogi Office of Chikkanahalli, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. Venkatarayappa is said to have died in the year 1988 leaving behind the petitioners who continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the land and was said to be paying Gutta or rent. Whereas, the petitioners had divided the land amongst themselves orally and were said to be cultivating the same and there is no dispute inter se between the petitioners. 3. The first petitioner-V. Muniyappa son of late Venkata Rayappa along with his sons have been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 3 acres 09 guntas of land bearing Sy. No. 15 and 0.34 1/2 guntas in land bearing Sy. No. 31, they having inherited the tenancy rights over the said lands from their ancestors. 4. The second petitioner-V. Chikka Muniyappa along with his sons and one cousin Pillappaiah son of Hanumappa are said to be been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 2 acres in Sy. No. 15 (out of which Pillappaiah was said to be in possession of 0.20 guntas of land). 5. The third petitioner-V. Subbanna along with his sons was said to be in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 0.34 1/2 guntas in Sy. No. 31, he having inherited the tenancy rights over the said extent of land from his ancestors. 6. 5. The third petitioner-V. Subbanna along with his sons was said to be in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 0.34 1/2 guntas in Sy. No. 31, he having inherited the tenancy rights over the said extent of land from his ancestors. 6. All of the above claim to have developed the lands and constructed farm houses on the lands and RTC extracts are produced for several years immediately prior to 1973-74 and thereafter, to demonstrate their continued possession of the land in question, they have paid land revenue and land revenue receipts have been produced and yearly rents are acknowledged by way of receipts which are also produced. 7. The erstwhile Baravardar S. Subbanna is said to have died on 14-11-1978 and his widow Savithramma is said to have died on 31-5-1985. Thereafter, it is the case of the first petitioner that he had filed Form 7 on 16-12-1974 before the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli, representing his family as the eldest member, claiming registration of occupancy rights in respect of the entire extent of land aforesaid which was Shanbhogi Service Inam Lands. 8. The second petitioner also is said to have filed Form 7 claiming registration of occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre out of land bearing Sy. No. 31 and 1 acre in land bearing Sy. No. 15. 9. The third petitioner-Sri V. Subbanna is also said to have filed Form 7 on 31-12-1974 claiming occupancy rights to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No. 15. It is also stated that consequent upon the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, which came into force with effect from 1-3-1963, regrant proceedings claimed by the authorised holder - V. Subbanna was taken up. It is stated that, in those proceedings, S. Sampangiramaiah, R. Krishna Murthy and S. Gundappa were said to be the rival claimants and in the said proceedings by order dated 30-11-1964 the proceedings were dismissed holding that the petitioners and the respondents therein, being the rival claimants, there was no regrant of the properties of Chikkanahalli. It is stated that, in those proceedings, S. Sampangiramaiah, R. Krishna Murthy and S. Gundappa were said to be the rival claimants and in the said proceedings by order dated 30-11-1964 the proceedings were dismissed holding that the petitioners and the respondents therein, being the rival claimants, there was no regrant of the properties of Chikkanahalli. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner again had taken up the proceedings for regrant and the names of all the claimants for regrant of the lands in all eight members have been mentioned and order relating to regrant was made on 28-4-1973 directing the petitioners therein to produce documentary evidence with regard to payment of occupancy price under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act and on adducing evidence showing payment of occupancy price, the regrant proceedings would be considered later. In the said proceedings, there is reference to the first petitioner acknowledging that he is in possession of the property and claiming as tenant and that if he claims to be tenant, he would be protected under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and that his redressal would lie elsewhere and thereafter the Assistant Commissioner passed regrant order dated 16-5-1973 regranting the lands in favour of Shanbogh S. Subbanna who was considered as the authorised holder. The first petitioner had filed an application under Section 8 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and that application has been filed in the month of July 1971 claiming that he was in possession and enjoyment of the land having inherited the tenancy rights from his ancestors, producing Pahanis in respect of the lands for several years. It is further pointed out that, the authorised holder Shanbogh S. Subbanna had admitted that P. Venkatarayappa was cultivating the lands as a tenant being the fourth petitioner. In the meanwhile, before the Land Tribunal, the application in Form 7 was taken up for consideration and it was recorded that, since the question of regrant proceedings under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 was still pending before the regrant authorities and yet to be decided, the applications did not arise for consideration and the said Form 7 were dismissed by order dated 11-6-1979. However, it is claimed that the order passed by the Tribunal was never communicated to the petitioners. It is only in retrospect that they learnt about the order. However, it is claimed that the order passed by the Tribunal was never communicated to the petitioners. It is only in retrospect that they learnt about the order. It is pointed out that the parties to the regrant proceedings are said to have filed appeals before the II Additional District Judge, Bangalore, questioning the regrant order dated 16-5-1973. The District Judge in turn has allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal and the matter was pending as on the date of this petition. 10. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned it is pointed out that in more than one place, the occupation of the land by the petitioners is admitted in those regrant proceedings and respondents 3 to 5 themselves had filed writ petitions before this Court in Writ Petition No. 24296 of 1996, wherein the present petitioners were impleaded and that petition was filed seeking a direction to the authority to dispose of the regrant proceedings at the earliest which was allowed and hence it is the case of the petitioners that their presence and occupation of the land in question is reflected not only in the regrant proceedings, but also in the writ petition before this Court. 11. It now transpires that the regrant proceedings have culminated in an order of regrant made in favour of the authorised holder represented by his legal representatives by an order dated 13-11-2003. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2006, in the backdrop of the Land Tribunal not having considered the case of the petitioners even after the regrant order was made. It is the case of the petitioners that, since they are claiming as tenants of the land in respect of which regrant proceedings were pending, the position of law is that, with the coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, the land was vested in the State and only upon regrant, petitioners claimed that, the relationship of landlord and tenant would continue as against the respondent-grantee who was the original claimant under the original authorised holder and thereby when the regrant proceedings have culminated in an order of regrant, the Land Tribunal is bound to consider the claim of tenancy under the respondents who have now became grantees of the landlord in question. Hence, he seeks a direction to the Land Tribunal to consider the claim of the petitioner for such grant of occupancy rights. 12. The learned Counsel for respondent 7 would point out that, the present petition is not maintainable in the absence of not challenging the regrant proceedings. Regrant proceedings had attained finality and it is only thereafter respondents 5 and 6 have sold the land in question to the respondent 7 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The question of considering the petitioners claim for occupancy rights also does not arise for consideration, as there is no such application for occupancy rights pending before the Tribunal. The claim which was originally filed has been dismissed as early as in the year 1979 holding that the petitioners have no locus standi to claim occupancy rights, as the lands were the subject-matter of regrant proceedings and therefore he would submit that, the petition itself is infructuous and is hopelessly barred of delay and latches, since the order of the Tribunal dated 11-6-1979 is challenged in the year 2006 and therefore there is no substance in this petition. It is also the case of the respondent 7 that the petitioners who are claiming under them are not in possession of the land in question. 13. The question is, whether petitioners could claim occupancy rights in respect of the land which was subject-matter of regrant proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Section 8 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 laid down that the right of a tenant to claim occupancy right pursuant to his tenancy would be governed by the tenancy law in force. It could be said that the petitioners right to claim occupancy rights would be governed by the Land Reforms Act. But insofar as the original authorised holder, the question of claiming tenancy would not arise for the simple reason that, with coming into force of KVOA Act, the land vests in the State and the tenancy if any would stand dissolved, by virtue of the original landholder, no longer being the authorised holder, till such time, regrant is made in favour of the original landholder. If on such regrant, the relationship would revive and in the meanwhile if the petitioner has already staked a claim as tenant, the Land Tribunal which is the Competent Authority to decide about the occupancy rights was to keep the proceedings in abeyance awaiting the result of regrant proceedings. The dismissal of the petitioners claim in the first instance on the ground that they are claiming under the original authorised holder and therefore he is not entitled to claim occupancy rights was not tenable. It is certainly open for a tenant to stake his claim in occupation of a tenant claiming occupancy rights under Land Reforms Act and in the present case on hand, when the proceedings for regrant was pending, the application filed by the petitioners having been rejected on the ground that they were not claiming occupancy rights, may not be the correct view. Accordingly, notwithstanding that there is inordinate delay in seeking to question the order of the Tribunal by the petitioners, the proceedings before the Tribunal would in any event would have had to be kept in abeyance, till such time, the regrant proceedings has attained finality and those proceedings have attained finality only in the year 2003, even then there is delay of three years which however, is not inordinate. Having regard to the carelessness with which the petitioners have moved the matter, and therefore if the petitioners claim the occupancy rights with reference to the other prevailing circumstances is addressed by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that, respondents would be seriously prejudiced. The fact that the same has been alienated by respondents 5 and 6 in favour of respondent 7 -notwithstanding, if the tenancy is established as on 1-3-1974, the claim for occupancy rights cannot be turn down. If the petitioners are in a position to establish such occupancy and tenancy. There is a serious dispute about the tenancy being lawful. The respondents have repeatedly said that the petitioners claim for occupancy and tenancy is illegal. Whether the petitioners claim is illegal or not is a matter to be decided by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the petitioners' application under Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights. Whether the petitioners claim is illegal or not is a matter to be decided by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the petitioners' application under Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights. Since respondent 7 has entered into the picture only now, it is appropriate that the 7th respondent also be heard by the Tribunal insofar as the claim of the petitioners is concerned. The parties to maintain status quo not only with regard to revenue entries that have been affected, but also as regards alienation. The respondent 7 shall not alienate the property in any manner, till the disposal of the matter by the Tribunal.