Karnataka High Court
T.S.Radhakrishna Decd.Bylr ... vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2008
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT A' DATED THIS THE 6th my 0? NOVEMBER %% T 'L PRESENT 7 THE HON'I.3LE MR. P-.1). DINAKARAH,;C§§IEFJ§;_iJSi*1cEr = THE IrION'BLE MR..,._ms'.r'r'CE'V%.jV.¢;;sABI~iA.Hi'1'~'" WRIT APPEAL Nos§é7oiés€):? 2007 IN W.A.No.9?G/20£Z;W--._ H A _ 1 T :S'§}SDi§ AKR§3§HE§A.5' 92:31: 8'! Ea] 'r'-3 mnxiavgrni--- ABOUT ":33 'YR"3', V, ._§R/AT ND 39.5, LIG IV MAiN, .....
, ' V. 3 $3821;-EAF}ADEVI NAGAR * T " MYS_GRE--.
~ ' "1b)'I' RL.?;aA9HUsUDHANA AG_ié¥D~.faBOUT 35 YRS, RfAT NO 896, me W MAIN, 5 PHASE .A SHARADADEVI NAGAR 'KMYSORE 1c) 1' R MURAL! AGED ABOUT 32 YRS, R/AT NO 896, 1.1:} Iv MAIN, 6 PHASE SI'-IARADADEVI NAGAR MYSORE 2 SHR§ T S VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 49 YRS, S/() T K SESHA IYENGAR RJAT :40 896, L16': IV MAIN, 6 PHASE SHARADADEVI NAGAR « ._ M V' MYSORE I»...AI?PE}LLAI*JTS_ {By Sri: C.B.SRINIVASAN, smxoa €Q'U--NsE1J,.v--":«':iR "s1i'a;I."'s% V JAYARAM BHAT, ADVOCATE. ' )- V AND: V' 1 S'I'A'I'E OF KARNATAM. ; = .A % REP BY THE PRINCIPAL .'EECRE"E;'ARY:'~. DEPARTMEN-TV OF ,IEE2"v'F::?-iU'E_1'91 8 BUILDING AMBEDKAFf'VEED=Hi,§Bfi£NGALORE 2 mun MYSORE' ' REP 73?' sEcam=«;R?.r.%T[% 3 THE z0'0.AUTH0Rr1*Y OF KARNATAKA .» REP' BY ITS '--E)§E3CIJTIVE DIRECTOR A V. CHAMARAJENDRA ZOOLOGECAL GARDEN = 1. _ MYS()§?.E"~--1_€). RESPONDENTS (By S1i:G;"v'EE_R£§sPPA GA FOR R1 as 2 M] 3._M.P.As$;_:C:ATEs FOR R3. ) THIS WRIT APPEAL £3 FILE!) 13/8 4 OF THE .i{ARI§ATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE '*3-:~.1V1:«; ORDER PASSED EN THE WRIT 1=>E'rmoN _ N'O;'i4984/2006 DATED 14/3/2007. % ] .1252. ;w.A. No 976 OF 2097 BETWEEN 1 SM'? '1' S VIJAYA SHAM W] O LATE V SHAZM IYENGAR D/O LATE T.K.SESI-{A IYENGAR AGED BAOUT 53 YRS R/AT AKASH 1810.179} 131' MAIN ROAD KUMARASWAMY LAY()UT-- j. V' IST STAGE BANGALORE SMT '1' s SHANTHA KUMARI W/() M LAKSHMANA BAI3U._ D/O LATE T PLSESHA IYEl§{'}.AR AGED ABOUT 55 ms J M R/AT NO.1351[52,4}TH cR9ss--_ NALA STREET K.Fi'--__h&Ol~I£aLLA u MYSQRE * 'A - L .. '-
Sm '1' s 93)::-am @PR'EéJg.A; 1¥§:?NC}}x.R."«" " M mo LAT;:*,'1~m_RAYANA EVENGAR ..
AGED _ABQU'T_§3 was V mo LA.'I'I2i fitsasm .¢IYEI.s'iGAR R/'AT '¢;--004'RAm<YU.TsAv NEW 53;, ROAD 1 SEENAPPA. RMV EXTENSION BANGALORE 94 ' ,3 '3 S MANJ.U.LA A . wit. MRUTHYUNJAYA SWAMY » ~ ,Ac:.Es3 'A._B"0._UT 51 YRS R,£A1.tNQ';T53~ SHANKAR MUTT
-A -airy' c;»:o;ss FORT MOHALLA, MYSSOREA 4 SMT*'I' S CHAMPAKA SHAM A 'A = AGED mom' 49 YRS . _ 'xv/0 M 9 GDPAL % "D/{) LATE '1'. K. SESHA EYENGAR R/AT NO. 11 4TH CROSS 30TH MAIN PAPAIAH GARDEN BANGALORE 85 SMT T S SURYAKANT§~II (BY ASSOCIATES AND:
1
mo SR1 K.V.RAVI 1310 LATE sm 'r.;<, seam xvgman NELE A6/9 VASU LAYOUT K BLOCK RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSORE 23.
Sri :R.B.SADASHIVAPPA :%:3R:'_'_' T mmugg STATE 01:' KARNATAKA ' A REP. BY THE PR1N€xxIAL'--sE.j(:REmR&* 1331'-Vr. OF REVENUE * .. "
M.S.BUILDIN_G ;
AMBEDK_AR{VEED[fH I LAND' MYSQRE TQ-_MYS-QR'E_ ' REP. BY 1'rsVsE,c:§:rAR*1 zoo AUTHQKHY op KARNATAKA A s{>cIEfI'Y REGISTERED UNDER THE * ~ _xAR'r%A';§A;«:¢_x socusmas REGESTRATION Azzrwgapg-B_¥ rrs EXECUTIVE GARDEN '~..MYs<::gEA'T10 ' 'SRf:'I.' SHRADHA Krzzsawa '3'}.".K.SESI-{A IYENGAR " I SMT' NEELAVATHI AGED ABOUT 62 YRS V 'AGRECULTURIST AND NOW BUSINESS R'/AT NO.896 LIG IV MAIN 6TH PHASE SHARADADEVI NAGAR MYSORE SR1 T S VENUGOPAL S] O 'I'.K.SESHA IYENGAR above said land and the Land Tribune} by . 15.4.85 allowed the application for confexmcnt V' mg' ht. However, the same was c:haL*' *9, 1;gc;3 u Authority--thc thizd respondent in {he gonad that the respondent wa$ 'ngt seivgd the order of the was sci to the Tribunal for fresh -with law. After remand, the L3J1df'FIibUIld1: dismissed the app1ica:ti<3fix1;:i§:3* scelcing for conferznent Gf fiailcd to prove that she was the tenant u6£ t l1:=: It is the contention of the , thatV the.p_n_1_9t!:1er of the pe1:it:ioners--T.S.NeeIavathi on and after coming to know of the older '£5'y i_:i2c Tribunal rejecting the application filed V . by of tha petitioners W.P.No.14984/2006 was the onder passed by the Land Tribtma} contending that the mother of the petitioners VT " a tenant as on 1.3.74 and the order passed by the Land " V'I'ribu11a1 was not justificd. The other kzgal representatives of Smtfleeiavathi filed an implcading application in the' writ petition and the iaarned Single Judge heard "
appearing for the parties and the impleading H disposed of the writ petition ari'Vcim {tie-,_ ':.ap;.:1i§§§itig::§v ' inxplaading by order dated 14.3.V2007 'b.y ';;§a:.me' * petition was hit by delay and bmer in 1989 and the same was '-L.R's of the aixplicant and the applicant was land on the relevant 'tiatsi.¢.,:'?37"«£i.':'::3?c«se§£3$S:i£)1i '<)f~V--t't:V1e land was with Zoo Authofifigs development that has taken jpiace on tflé: £§n_ 1964 and no application had , 'been and Ceiling Act though the extent of __clai:a1cti was 32 acres of urban land and ti1::1'c:fr:3:~<5,' ' i:'i1<:r:; Kx2as no merit in the Writ petition and V . accdfiiingijr,"B§th the writ petition and the application for 'A were dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order fiiiééixissmg the writ pctitiozl, the writ petitioners have pxéferrcd W.A.No.9'70/2007 and the impicading appiicants 9 in the writ petition whose application was dismissed along with the petifion have filed W.A.No.976/ 2007.
3. We have heard the learned counsei . the appellants, learned ceunsel appearing 1'03' = '4 " 'V No.3 and the learned Government:=.Advo¢e3v£e'A'eeafipeajing-ee,__fo:e AA respondents 1 and 2 in both the
4. Learned counsel appeax_fjfig..:for_»_the.%§ pef;f.3;ioners« appeiianiséita is also appearing for appe}}a.fi'i*s submitted that the order passed by fl1fifI"i"ibVIV1' z1a1_ 'V A7;2s%2;2,€.."é:x1t)Ixeo13s and the delay in fiim" g 'the petitionny explained and the leamed Single .}11:§igeVVw*s;g'1s«.1::s:A:Vt"*--_1?12.stifieci in dismissing the writ petition smd v_f2J1:.vthe other hand, learneci Govemment Advocate for the State and the Land Tribunal argued in of the order passed by the Tzibunal and the learned Judge and the leazned counsel for the Zoo Authoxitgfi eitspondent No.3 in both the appeals argued in support of \§«/,3» 10 the order passed by the Tribunal and the . Judge. '
6. We have gven. to"
contcnfion of the learned coui§:§éi~V..:j;1ppéézi;p.g and scrutinized the on .._V
7. The znatcrial on' show that Ncelavathi had 'fér confermcnt of occ11panc'3r"'jri§':ti:?; ' acres 36 guatas in Sy.Nca.4 '-;:p..:n;g% sy. N$;V41§jT5«'i'-.§f jéhtuwxbarahaiii called Karanji and Kensifigiqfi .G§:dén, ""?1§bugh the Land 'I'ribunal _ 'had '=ap_QI_icafion filed by the mother of the 'g_Vap§3e§Iant§;4«SrIif§?§¢elavathi by order dated 15.4.85 the same this court in W.P.N-9.36957/82 V . contéfidhavhg. the Zoo Authority was in possession of the of which occupancy mg' ht was clam ed since and considerable improvements have been mwe since VT " 1"£v$9 and cousiderabk. improvement 11% been made by " investing huge amount by the Zoo Authority and this court kg/' 11 by order dated. 15.4.85 allowed the writ "
aside the oxder passed by the Land t the matter to the Tribunal for in; with law. The material on WO11.it3__ . er "
Land though had been leased fa%*o1i_r Iycngar, he had surxengiered Tljhct soxmndcr was chailenged by and surnmdcr ws heir-i'to_ 'is no material Whatevezfito' was put back in possesgtotx the order of the Assistant comm1'ssioIt(--;:r, hand, the material on It-zcoxti a sale deed has been executed in iltaxfotxxf .;§iut_11o1*ity by his Highness Mahmaja of Mysore ._ and Zoo Authority has been put in V --V poseeesioo. offtthc land in respect of which occupancy right H u It is clear from the perusal of the order of 'l'ribuna1 impugned in the Writ petition that the 'I'r1"b1ma1 Vt " considered the contention of the parties in a detail order " end has held that, after referring to the admission made by \/Q 12 said Neelavathi that she was not ,.g;o_ssos:§i§oii ?1i€ k V' and possession of the land was material on record including the .:¢e.1o¢..ec....o..j%i....;.a..,..r' * of Zoo Authority. Having to the no application had been Ceiling Act though the extentof mom than the p€IIfliSSibl€_"v"jEI}:(3§:r€;j'fi3 other material on record oucsfion of fat that the app?ioofit' ' she was cultivating the land as said finding is based upfin the mat¢1ia1%'¢n_orcc;:;~c1.'--._T1:é%V learned Single Judge has also = tb,_£.f on record would show that the in flavour of the Zoo in the year 1964 vhh '.vé$'s:.Maha1aja of Mysore and that land was hem' g Zoo Authority and considcrabke developments place aficr 1954 and further held that the of the Land Tribunai that the applicant had some T "-«iiooiinoction with the land in question but faded' to prove that .4 : she was ctfitiwzating tho land as on 1.3.74 and no {application K/3' 13 had been filed under Urban Land Ceiling and "
1976 and the said finding is based on trig; ' petition is hit by delay anci Iaches a-:.:§ pasised on 6.4.89 and the Writ delay and lachcs has not becil on perusal of the avermenjzs and the order passed by the to take any other V'it'."W Judge has rightly oV'k)'s£éVivec:l':iith4.':'Vi:t:fffti':r::"iTzzaj.;('£:£1:1g« 'g;ive§1 by the Land Triblxnai on the trfufiéfion of and the writ petition is also hit éL*.1b<'1"..."~'1lac}1cs which has not been V. accordingly, we hold that there ho' merit appeals and pass the foilowing order:
3 = is are dismissed. S d/_ Chief. Iustice Sd/-» Judge index: Yes] No