Karnataka High Court
Smt Ramanjinamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2017
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.23806/2017(LR-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT. RAMANJINAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI ANJINAPPA,
RESIDING AT No.28,
AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560 065 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.THARESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY /
COMMISSIONER
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009
-2-
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
'SHARAVATHI COMPLEX',
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 064
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
JAKKUR CIRCLE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560 064
5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
JAKKUR CIRCLE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-64
6. SMT M .S. DEVEERAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRI S. SIDDAIAH,
D/O SMT.PUTTALINGAMMA
7. SRI M S CHANDRA PRASHANTH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI S SIDDAIAH,
AND Dr.M.S.DEVEERAMMA
8. SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRI SHIVAMADAIAH,
RESPONDENT NOs.6, 7 AND 8
ARE RESIDING AT No.28,
AGRAHARA VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-65
-3-
9. SMT. LALITHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O SRI N.D.NAIK,
R/AT YELAHANKA OLD TOWN,
NEAR MAIN BUS STAND,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064
10. SMT. LALITHA NAIR
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRI N.P. NAIR,
R/AT No.232,
NEW TOWN YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064
ALSO RESIDING AT No.44,
KODIHALLI, H.A.L. 3RD STAGE,
BINNAMANGALA POST,
BENGALURU-560 075 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.V.GIRIKUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.05.2017 PASSED IN
APPEAL No.1310/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU,
ANNEXURE-U ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RENDERING
FINDINGS THAT RESPONDENT NOs.6 TO 8 ARE THE OWNERS
IN POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND THE
DIRECTION ISSUED FOR GETTING THE REVENUE RECORDS
ENTERED IN THE NAMES OF RESPONDENT NOs.6 TO 8 AND
GRANT SUCH OTHER SIMILAR RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure 'U' to the petition) passed in Appeal No.1310/2007 on the file of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('K.A.T.' for short), Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the finding rendered by the K.A.T., that the appellants in the said appeal (respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein) are the owners in possession of the land measuring to an extent of 04 Acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.28 situate at Agrahara village, Yelahanka hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, and that their names should be entered in the revenue records.
3. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the said land measuring 04 Acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.28 had fallen to the share of her father, namely Anjinappa in a family partition that was effected amongst himself and his brothers as per the -5- partition deed dated 09.12.1968. True copy of the partition deed is at Annexure 'A' to the petition. According to the petitioner, her father during his life time had executed an unregistered Will dated 16.10.1970 vide Annexure 'C' to the petition bequeathing the said land in her favour.
Subsequently, her father died on 14.07.1996.
3.2 It is alleged by the petitioner that one Kamanna @ Byranna, who had no title in respect of the land measuring 04 Acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.28, had sold the same to one Sri V. Hanumaraju under sale deed dated 18.07.1972. Sri V. Haunmaraju, in turn, had sold the said land in favour of one Smt. Lalitha Nair (respondent No.10 in this petition) under sale deed dated 03.11.1980 registered on 27.11.1980 (Annexure 'G' to the petition). Thereafter, Smt. Lalitha Nair has alienated the said land in favour of Smt.Puttalingamma (respondent No.8 in this petition) under registered sale deed dated 12.03.1987 (Annexure 'H' to the petition). Subsequently, Smt. Puttalingamma has executed registered gift deed dated 07.06.2006 (Annexure 'L' to the petition) gifting the said property in favour of her daughter, namely -6- Smt. M.S. Deveeramma (respondent No.6 in this petition) and grandson viz., Sri M.S. Chandra Prashanth (respondent No.7 in this petition).
3.3 The petitioner has referred to the suit in O.S. No.1119/2010 (Annexure 'F' to the petition) filed by her before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, seeking for the relief of declaration to the effect that she is the absolute owner in possession of the land measuring 04 Acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.28 and that registered sale deeds dated 22.06.1972, 27.11.1980 and 12.03.1987 and registered gift deed dated 07.06.2006 were created by fraud and the same did not bind the plaintiff (petitioner herein) and for consequential relief of permanent injunction.
3.4 When the matter stood thus, on the basis of the report of Tahasildar, PUC circle-3, Bengaluru, respondent No.2 herein - Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in case No.LRF[83]90:95-96/843:90-01 against Smt.Lalita Naik -7- (respondent No.9 herein) on the ground that she had violated the provisions of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Act while purchasing the land measuring 04 Acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.28. The Assistant Commissioner after issuing notice to the parties and considering the fact that the opposite party, namely Smt. Lalitha Naik did not participate in the said proceedings, on the basis of records, held that there was violation of the provisions of the Act in purchase of the said land and by order dated 27.04.1996 vide Annexure 'M' to the petition, forfeited the said land to the Government. The said order was subject matter of challenge in Appeal No.1310/2007 before the K.A.T. 3.5 The appellants (respondent Nos. 6 to 8 herein) have stated in the said appeal (Annexure 'N' to the petition) that an extent of 01 Acre 25 guntas in Sy. No.28 of Agrahara village has been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for formation of Peripheral Ring Road between Tumkur Road - old Madras Road-Hosur Road vide final notification dated 03.07.2007 and name of Smt. Puttalingamma (respondent No.8 herein) has been shown at -8- Sl. No.489 of the said final notification and that respondent No.7 herein was also issued notice by BDA prior to acquisition of the said extent of land. It is further stated that the BDA has not yet taken possession of the said land as proceedings relating to award is pending consideration.
3.6 In the said appeal, the petitioner herein filed an application numbered as I.A. No.5 under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking permission of the K.A.T., to get herself impleaded as additional respondent. The K.A.T., by order dated 25.06.2015 (Annexure 'P' to the petition), dismissed the said application.
3.7 The said order dated 25.06.2015 was subject matter of challenge in writ petition in W.P. No.41409/2015 before this Court. A coordinate bench of this Court by order dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure 'Q' to the petition), has observed that the petitioner herein was neither a proper nor necessary party for deciding whether the purchasers of the land in question committed violation of the provisions of the Act. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioner herein to establish her rights in the suit in O.S. No.1119/2010 and -9- challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.04.1996 by filing separate appeal.
3.8 There is reference in the writ petition to Appeal No.632/2016 (Annexure 'R' to the petition) filed by the petitioner herein before the K.A.T impugning the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.04.1996. It is stated that since the said petition came to be dismissed for non- prosecution by order dated 25.01.2017, the petitioner herein filed Miscellaneous petition No.69/2017 (Annexure 'S' to the petition) for setting aside the said order. The said appeal and miscellaneous petition are said to be pending consideration before the K.A.T. 3.9 Subsequently, the K.A.T., by order dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure 'U' to the petition), while allowing the appeal No.1310/2007 filed by respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein, has set aside the order dated 27.04.1996 passed by respondent No.1, namely Assistant Commissioner forfeiting the land in question to the Government and the same was ordered to be restored to the name of the appellants
- 10 -
(respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein). Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the material on record.
5. The petitioner herein is claiming herself to be the daughter of one Anjinappa, who is said to be the erstwhile owner of land measuring to an extent of 04 Acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.28. The records would indicate that the said land was subject matter of three sale deeds: the first one dated 18.07.1972 executed by one Kamanna @ Byranna in favour of V. Hanumaraju; the second one dated 03.11.1980 (registered on 27.11.1980) executed by V. Hanumaraju in favour of Smt. Lalitha Nair (respondent No.10 in this petition) and the third one dated 12.03.1987 executed by Smt. Lalitha Nair in favour of Smt. Puttalingamma (respondent No.8 herein). Smt. Puttalingamma has gifted the land in question in favour of her daughter (respondent No.6 herein) and grandson (respondent No.7 herein) under registered gift deed dated 07.06.2006.
- 11 -
6. The land measuring 04 Acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.28 was also the subject matter of proceedings bearing No.LRF(83)90:95-96/843:90-91 initiated by the second respondent herein, namely Assistant Commissioner, under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act against Smt. Lalitha Naik (respondent No.9 in this petition). The said proceedings resulted in the land being resumed to the Government by order dated 27.04.1996 vide Annexure 'M' to the petition.
7. The said order of Assistant Commissioner was impugned by respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein in Appeal No.1310/2007 before the K.A.T, which after considering the contentions of the respective parties and on verification of the records, has observed that the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner were wrongly initiated against one Smt. Lalitha Naik (respondent No.9 herein) instead of Smt. Lalitha Nair (respondent No.10 herein) and neither the appellants (respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein) nor their predecessor-in-title, namely Lalitha Nair (respondent No.10 in this petition) were served with notice of the said proceedings. Further, the K.A.T., has held that the first respondent therein,
- 12 -
namely the State was not justified in exercising its suo motu powers against Smt. Lalitha Nair for violation of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Act nearly after 15 years from the date she purchased the land in question. Accordingly, the K.A.T., by order dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure 'U' to the petition), has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.04.1996 forfeiting the said land to the Government while ordering restoration of the same in the names of appellants (respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein).
8. The said order of K.A.T., is sought to be impugned by the petitioner herein on the premise that she is the owner of the aforesaid land measuring 04 Acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.28 by virtue of unregistered Will executed by her father, namely Anjinappa in her favour on 16.10.1970. The said land had fallen to the share of her father under family partition dated 09.12.1968. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein are claiming ownership to the said land on the basis of concocted and fraudulent documents. The K.A.T., without considering the fact that the suit in O.S. No.1310/2007 filed by the petitioner herein for declaration and
- 13 -
permanent injunction in respect of the said land was pending consideration before the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, has passed the impugned order restoring the said land in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein.
9. On the contrary, it is the case of respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein (appellants before the K.A.T.) that the said land originally belonged to Byrappa, the father of Anjinappa and grandfather of the petitioner herein. Byrappa's second son, namely Kamanna (brother of Anjinappa) had sold the said land to V. Hanumaraju under registered sale deed dated 18.07.1972. V. Hanumaraju, in turn, sold the said land in favour of Smt. Lalitha Nair under sale deed dated 03.11.1980 registered on 27.11.1980 and subsequently, Smt. Puttalingamma (respondent No.8 herein) purchased the said land from Smt. Lalitha Nair under registered sale deed dated 12.03.1987.
10. Admittedly, the original suit in O.S. No.1119/2010 filed by the petitioner herein seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction before the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil
- 14 -
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, is pending consideration. It is clear from perusal of the records that the petitioner has been trying to interfere with the proceedings before the K.A.T. Initially, she filed application in I.A. No.5 to get herself impleaded in Appeal No.1310/2007 filed by respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein before the K.A.T. When the said application was dismissed by K.A.T. by order dated 25.06.2015, she approached this Court in W.P. No.41409/2015, which was also dismissed by order dated 06.06.2016. Subsequently, she has filed appeal No.632/2016 before the K.A.T., which is said to be pending consideration.
11. Prima facie, it is seen that there is absolutely no basis for the petitioner to file this writ petition. Since the suit in O.S. No.1119/2010 is pending consideration before the trial Court, this Court would not like to express any opinion on merits of the case. However, this Court find that on the basis of pendency of the said suit, the impugned order passed by the K.A.T., allowing the appeal No.1310/2007 filed by respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein cannot be interfered with. Under the circumstances, the question of either reopening the said
- 15 -
appeal before the K.A.T., or permitting the petitioner herein to get herself impleaded in the said disposed of appeal does not arise. On the face of it, the suit in O.S. No.1119/2010 filed by the petitioner herein appears to be a chance litigation initiated belatedly 40 years after the date (16.10.1970) of execution of alleged unregistered Will by her father in her favour.
12. In that view of the matter, this Court find that there is absolutely no justification to entertain this writ petition even for the sake of issuance of notice. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
13. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma