Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 696 (KAR)

C. Kempaiah v. State of Karnataka

2016-09-16

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2016
ORDER : S. Abdul Nazeer, J. In this case, the petitioners have called in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 19-2-1988 in Case No. INA(KY)8/87-88 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District. 2. The petitioners claim to be the managing trustees of Sree Rama Bhajana Mandira Trust, Hunasanahalli, Kaylancha Hobli, K.P. Doddi Post, Ramanagara Taluk and District. One Narayana Rao, father of the respondents nos.3 and 4 had made an application under Section 9 of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas out of 4 acres in Sy. No. 147, New No. 11/8 of Hunasanahalli, K.P. Doddi Post, Kaylancha Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District. According to him, the land was endowed to Sree Rama Bhajan Mandira. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 19-2-1988 allowed the application and granted occupancy rights to an extent of 2 acres of land in the said survey number. 3. Two of the residents of the village, namely, Chikkakotaiah and Ramakrishnaiah filed an appeal challenging the said order before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bengaluru Rural District in L.R.A. No. 67 of 1988. During the pendency of the appeal, the Appellate Authorities were abolished. It appears that on an application made by Chikkakotaiah and Ramakrishnaiah, the matter was transferred to this Court, wherein it was numbered as W.P. No. 30160 of 1993. This Court by order dated 5-8-2005 dismissed the writ petition. Chikkakotaiah and Ramakrishnaiah filed an appeal in W.A. No. 3852 of 2005 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 14-8-2006. Thereafter, the petitioners herein have constituted the Trust as per the Trust Deed at Annexure-A and have filed the present writ petition. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the land in question was granted to Sree Rama Bhajan Mandira as per the grant certificate at Annexure-B, dated 12-4-1936. Sri Narayana Rao, the father of respondents nos.3 and 4 was not the tenant of the land at any point of time. He has made an application for grant of occupancy rights by suppressing material fact. No notice was issued to the landlords by the Land Tribunal. Sri Narayana Rao, the father of respondents nos.3 and 4 was not the tenant of the land at any point of time. He has made an application for grant of occupancy rights by suppressing material fact. No notice was issued to the landlords by the Land Tribunal. An ex parte order at Annexure-E, dated 19-2-1988 was passed granting occupancy rights in respect of 2 acres of land in favour of Narayana Rao. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondents nos.3 and 4 submits that petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. Two of the residents of the village had challenged the order of the Land Tribunal by filing the writ petition in W.P. No. 30160 of 1993. This Court after considering the rival contentions of the parties has passed an order rejecting the said writ petition. The writ appeal filed by them in W.A. No. 3852 of 2005 was dismissed by this Court on 14-8-2006. The petitioners cannot reagitate the matter, which has been concluded in W.A. No. 3852 of 2005. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Division Bench in Manipur Vasant Kini v. Union of India and Others, ILR 1998 Kar. 954 (DB). It is further submitted that on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights. This has already been confirmed by the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments made at the bar and perused the materials placed on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the land in question belongs to Rama Devara Bhajana Mandira. It was granted as per the order at Annexure-B, dated 124-1936. Sri Narayana Rao, father of respondents nos.3 and 4 filed an application for grant of 2 acres 20 guntas of land out of 4 acres of land belonging to Sree Rama Bhajan Mandira. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights to an extent of 2 acres of land in favour of Narayana Rao. 8. As noticed above, the said order was challenged by Chikkakotaiah and Ramakrishnaiah. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding of fact that notice to the general public, particularly, Hunasanahalli was issued and to that extent panchanama was drawn. The village accountant and some of the villagers have signed the panchanama under Section 48(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding of fact that notice to the general public, particularly, Hunasanahalli was issued and to that extent panchanama was drawn. The village accountant and some of the villagers have signed the panchanama under Section 48(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal has recorded statement of Sri Narayana Rao and has granted occupancy rights in his favour to an extent of 2 acres of land. The contention that no notice was served on the office bearers of the temple before granting occupancy rights has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 9 and 10 is as under: "9. It is also an undisputed fact that the total extent of land at Survey No. 147 is 3 acres 30 guntas. Out of it respondent No. 1 filed application for grant of occupancy rights to the extent of 2 acres. Immediately after receipt of the application forwarded by the Tahsildar of Ramanagar to the Land Tribunal, the Tribunal after initiating the proceedings issued notice to the public on 24-8-1987 in Form No. 8 and informed the general public of the interested parties to appear and produce the documents, if any, to show that the applicant is not eligible for occupancy right. Along with him another two persons have filed applications for grant of occupancy right and their applications were also registered in Case Nos. 1/87-88 and 4/87-88 and respondents No. 1's application is registered as 8/97-88. Notice dated 24-8-1987 issued in Form No. 8 has been entrusted to the concerned village officer of that village to publish in the village and to draw the mahazar to that effect. Accordingly, the village officer published the notice sent by the Tribunal in Form No. 8. Having published it the village officer drawn the mahazar and obtained the signature of some of the villagers. Therefore the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that without issuing the notice to the State or to the petitioners the Tribunal passed the order cannot been accepted. Since the application presented by the respondent no. Having published it the village officer drawn the mahazar and obtained the signature of some of the villagers. Therefore the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that without issuing the notice to the State or to the petitioners the Tribunal passed the order cannot been accepted. Since the application presented by the respondent no. 3 before the Tahsildar of Ramanagar for grant of occupancy right and the said application has been forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Land Tribunal therefore it cannot be said that the Tahsildar had no knowledge about the filing of the application and the question of making the State as a necessary party does not arise. 10. After registration of the cases and after issuance of public I notice the Tribunal has again issue notice to the respondent no. 3 to appear before him on 29-1-1988. After his appearance on 13-7-1988 his statement has been recorded in accordance with the rules. Before the Tribunal it is specifically stated by the deceased respondent no. 1 that he was cultivating the land to the extent of two acres for the last 45 years by paying Rs. 300/- per year to the temple as rent through one Patel Channegowda and he has also paid necessary land revenue. His name also appeared in the record of rights as a cultivator against Column 12(2) of R.O.R. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly granted occupancy right in his favour to the extent of two acres." 9. The writ appeal filed by Chikkakotaiah and Ramakrishnaiah in W.A. No. 3852 of 2005 challenging the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Division Bench on 14-8-2006. 10. In Manipur Vasant Kini's case (supra), the Division Bench has held that decision rendered in the previous litigation filed as "Public Interest Litigation" would operate as res judicata and a binding precedent to the subsequent litigation, also filed in Public Interest. It has been further held that subsequent proceedings filed by another set of litigants in the Public Interest arising out of the same cause which had been raised in the earlier litigation would be barred by principles of "Res judicata" and in particular Constructive "res judicata". The previous writ petition was filed by the villagers in the public interest. The subsequent writ petition is also filed by the petitioners claiming to be the trustees in public interest. The previous writ petition was filed by the villagers in the public interest. The subsequent writ petition is also filed by the petitioners claiming to be the trustees in public interest. The Trust was constituted on 16-7-2009, long after the grant of occupancy rights. The findings of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 30160 of 1993, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 3852 of 2005 is binding on the petitioners. In the circumstances, petitioners cannot be allowed to reagitate the matter. 11. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents nos.3 and 4 have filed a suit O.S. No. 315 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ramanagara for possession of the property and suit has been decreed on 11-2-2015. This itself shows that respondents nos. 3 and 4 were not in possession of the property. It is evident from this judgment that petitioners have filed suit for possession of the property by contending that they were dispossessed from the property after 27-8-2010 by using force. It is not the case of respondents nos.3 and 4 that they were not in possession of the property earlier to the said date. Therefore, judgment of the Civil Court does not help the petitioners in any way. 12. In the result, writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.