Karnataka High Court
Basappa Kallappa Lagamannavar vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 September, 2020
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.105488/2018 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN
1. BASAPPA KALLAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HEBBALLI-580 112,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.
2. NAGAPPA MALLAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HEBBALLI-580 112,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.
3. PARAMESHWAR SIDDAPPA LAGAMMANNAVAR
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HEBBALLI-580112,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AKSHAY A.KATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD-580001.
RAMCHANDRARAO LAXMANRAO JAHAGIRDAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
2. SMT.MANJULA
W/O RAMACHANDRARAO JAHAGIRDAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
2
R/O: HEBBALLI-580112,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.
3. SMT.ANURADHA W/O SHRIKANT THITE
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: HEBBALLI-580112,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.
4. SMT.PADMAJA W/O GOPIVALLAB KATTI
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: NEAR BRINDAVAN HOTEL,
MAHADEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
5. SMT.DEVAYANI @ SWATI
W/O SANJEEV MUTALIK
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEIWFE,
R/O: AINAPUR-591303,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 17.07.2018 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD RESPONDENT NO.1 IN WATAN/
WAHI:05/2010-11 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-"E".
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-E dated 17.07.2018 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner whereby the Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioners and allowed the claim of the respondents No.2 to 5 in respect of the subject land bearing R.S.No.331 measuring 16 acres 20 guntas situated at Hebballi village and Taluk Dharwad district.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 as well as the learned AGA for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the son of one Kallappa Beerappa Lagamannavar, who was also the uncle of petitioners No.2 and 3. After the subject land stood resumed by the Government in accordance with the 4 Bombay Saranjam Resumption Rules, 1952, the said Kallappa who was a protected tenant was re-granted the subject land vide order at Annexure-B dated 10.06.1959. Though the resumption of land was challenged by the landlord before this Court by way of writ petition, the same was withdrawn by him.
4. In the year 2007, the State Government extended time to apply for re-grant of the land pursuant to which the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the aforesaid Kallappa filed an application dated 03.08.2008 seeking re-grant of the subject land. A report was submitted by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-C which indicated that the petitioners were in actual possession and enjoyment of the land and that they had paid the requisite amount to the Government.
5. Meanwhile the application filed by respondents No.2 to 5 to the respondent No.1 seeking 5 to enter their names as per old tenure was pending and in the same, the petitioners filed their statement of objections and contested the same. So also, the respondents No.2 to 5 contested the claim of the petitioners. By the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioners and upheld the claim of the respondents No.2 to 5.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure-E is vitiated since the same is contrary to law as well as the material on record and that the same deserves to be quashed by this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 submits that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts in that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed that the alleged grant dated 10.06.1959 in favour of Kallappa 6 had been cancelled in the year 1969 for non- compliance of the terms and conditions of the grant including non-payment of the occupancy price by Kallappa. Under the said order of the year 1969, the predecessor in title of the respondents No.2 to 5 acquired absolute right over the subject land and the said order has attained finality. It is also submitted that the petitioners have also suppressed that Form No.7 and 7-A filed by them had been rejected coupled with the claim of the petitioners having also been rejected by this Court in RSA No.5441/2009 dated 26.02.2015. It is therefore contended that neither the aforesaid Kallappa nor the petitioners who claim under him have any right over the subject land and the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7
9. The material on record indicates that the subject land was granted in favour of the aforesaid Kallappa vide Annexure-B dated 10.06.1959. A perusal of the said grant order will indicate that Kallappa was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.301/- towards the grant. The said sum was to be paid within a period of two years from the date of grant subject to the further conditions that full occupancy rights shall stand conferred upon Kallappa only after the entire aforesaid occupancy price of Rs.301/- was paid by him and necessary Kabulayat in the prescribed form is executed by him. The grant order also stipulates that in the event Kallappa committed breach or default of any of the terms and conditions of the grant, the grant may be revoked.
10. A perusal of the grant order supra will clearly indicate that the same was a conditional grant which was qualified by the pre-condition/mandatory 8 requirement that Kallappa was liable to pay the entire occupancy price of Rs.301/- within a period of two years. The grant order also stipulates that Kallappa would be entitled to claim occupancy rights only after he pays the entire occupancy price and execute necessary Kabulayat in the prescribed form. Further, Kallappa was also liable to pay rents to the Government till the date of execution of Kabulayat.
11. The material on record clearly indicates that Kallappa neither paid the occupancy price of Rs.301/- nor executed Kabulayat or paid rents to the Government. In other words, there was complete and total non-compliance of the grant order by Kallappa and consequently in the absence of any material to establish that Kallappa complied with the terms and conditions of the grant order, it has to be held that Kallappa did not acquire any manner of right, title, 9 interest or possession over the subject land by virtue of the aforesaid grant order.
12. Though it is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the year 1987, Kallappa paid the occupancy price, apart from the fact that necessary details in this regard have not been furnished by the petitioners, documents in support of the said contention have not been produced by the petitioners. It is therefore clear that Kallappa did not acquire any right over the subject land pursuant to the grant order dated 10.06.1959 as sought to be contended by the petitioners.
13. A perusal of the proceedings of the State Government dated 26.01.1969 (Annexure-R) will clearly indicate that on account of Kallappa not having complied with the aforesaid grant order in respect of the subject land, the land along with other lands were granted in favour of D.L.Heblikar (predecessor-in-title 10 of respondents No.2 to 5) by canceling the grant in favour of Kallappa. The said order at Annexure-R having not been challenged by either Kallappa or the petitioners, the same has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon both Kallappa as well as the petitioners. It is therefore clear that by virtue of the cancellation of the grant in favour of Kallappa in the year 1969 vide Annexure-R, the grant in favour of Kallappa stood revoked, cancelled and nullified and the right of Kallappa, if any, in the subject land also stood extinguished and he ceased to have any manner of right, title, interest and possession over the subject land.
14. Pursuant to the grant in favour of the aforesaid D.L.Heblikar, his name was mutated in the revenue records as can be seen from Annexures-R1 and R2. Instead of challenging the cancellation of his grant vide Annexure-R, Kallappa chose to suppress the 11 same and file Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights on the ground that he was a tenant by falsely showing that the Government is the landlord. Annexure-R3 is the order dated 01.09.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the application filed by Kallappa. Even this order has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon not only Kallappa but also the petitioners herein who claim under him.
15. Despite Form No.7 filed by Kallappa having been rejected by the Land Tribunal in the year 1980 itself, the petitioners herein made yet another attempt in 1998-99 to stake a claim upon the subject land by filing Form No.7-A by invoking Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The said application having been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on 17.11.2008 (Annexure-R6), the appeal No.943/2011 filed by the petitioners was also 12 dismissed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 28.09.2016 (Annexure-R7). Even this order passed by the KAT has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners. It is therefore clear that even this attempt of the petitioners to claim the subject land went in vain and the same was rejected.
16. Meanwhile petitioners attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the respondents No.2 to 5 over the subject land resulting in the respondents No.2 to 5 instituting a suit against the petitioners in O.S.No.513/2002 before the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Dharwad for permanent injunction and other reliefs. In the said suit, the trial Court upheld the claim of the respondents No.2 to 5 herein and rejected the claim of the petitioners. The appeal in R.A.No.101/2007 filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-R4). So also, the appeal preferred by the 13 petitioners before this Court in RSA No.5441/2009 was also dismissed by this Court by its order dated 26.02.2015 (Annexure-R5). Thus the claim of the petitioners was rejected by the competent Civil Court and confirmed by this Court which upheld the right, title, interest and possession of respondents No.2 to 5 over the subject land. Even these proceedings have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners. It is therefore clear that even this attempt made by the petitioners to stake a claim over the subject land has been rejected and confirmed by this Court also.
17. Further the other material on record, in particular order dated 09.03.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.66672/2009 (Annexure-R8) and the revenue records at Annexure-R9 also clearly establish that the petitioners do not have any manner of right, title, 14 interest or possession over the subject land which is owned and possessed by the respondents No.2 to 5.
18. Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that in the year 2007, the State Government granted extension of time to pay the occupancy price towards re-grant of land in favour of Kallappa and that the same was paid by the petitioners who sought for re-grant is concerned, a perusal of the said Government Orders will indicate that the same relate to extension of time to file applications seeking re-grant of lands resumed by the Government under the aforesaid Bombay Rules. The said Government Orders do not permit extension of time for payment of occupancy price beyond the period of two years from the date of grant as stipulated in the grant order in favour of Kallappa of the year 1959. Under these circumstances, no reliance can be placed upon the said Government Orders by the petitioners in order to 15 contend that they continue to have any right over the subject lands and as such, their contention in this regard is rejected.
19. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that the Deduty Commissioner committed an error in rejecting their claim for re-grant is concerned, the said contention deserves to be rejected for more than one reason. Firstly the petitioners having specifically contended that the land had already been granted in favour of Kallappa are estopped from contending that they are entitled to seek fresh re-grant which contention clearly runs counter to the claim of re-grant in favour of Kallappa. Secondly in the light of the Form No.7 and 7-A filed by Kallappa and the petitioners having been rejected by the appropriate authorities, it was not open for the petitioners to seek re-grant under the Bombay Rules. Under these circumstances, even 16 this contention urged on behalf of the petitioners deserves to be rejected.
20. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 despite the aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances including the previous litigations in respect of the subject land that have occurred during the lifetime of Kallappa and thereafter, the petitioners are clearly guilty of suppression of material facts and they have not come to Court with clean hands. This conduct of the petitioners clearly disentitles them from seeking any relief at the hands of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Viewed from this angle also, petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present petition.
21. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner would clearly indicate that 17 he has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record including the previous litigation between the parties and has arrived at the correct conclusion that the petitioners do not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the subject land bearing R.S.No.331 which is owned and possessed by the respondents No.2 to 5. I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 that warrants interference by this Court.
22. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE CLK