Karnataka High Court
Sri. J Raja vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. DINESH MAHESHWARI
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT APPEAL No.631/2018 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI J. RAJA
S/O. LATE JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 038.
2. SRI SHARATH KUMAR
S/O. J. RAJA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.12/1, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
NEW BINNAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 038. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: THIMMAIAH K.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
2
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
4. SRI DODDAMARAPPA
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
5. SRI CHIKKAMARAPPA
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
6. SMT. MARAMMA
D/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
7. SMT. MAHADEVI
D/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
8. SRI BHOJARAJU
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
9. SRI RAJESH
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
3
10. SRI RAVI KUMAR
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
11. SRI SRINIVASA
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
12. SRI NAGARAJ
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
13. SRI SAMPATH
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
14. SRI MURTHY
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
15. SRI GANESH
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
16. SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
17. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
18. LAKSHMI
D/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
4
19. SMT. RADHA
D/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
20. SMT. RATHNA
D/O. LATE VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 20
ARE R/AT NO.19/3,
BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 038.
SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O. LATE DODDAMARAPPA
SMT. M.P. GANGAMMA
W/O. LATE M. MUNIRAJU
SINCE DEAD BY LRs.,
RESPONDENTS NO.21 TO 23
21. SRI M.R. RAVIKUMAR
S/O. LATE M. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.30, 3RD MAIN,
8TH CROSS, SIR M.V.NAGAR
RAMURTHYNAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 038.
22. SRI M.R. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. LATE M. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
23. SRI. M.R. MURALIDHAR
S/O. LATE M. MUNIRAJU
5
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 22 & 23
ARE R/AT NO.9/3,
NEW BINNAMANGALA
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 038.
24. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 038. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: H. VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDL. GOVT.
ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2 & R-24; NOTICE TO R-3 TO R-20
DISPENSED WITH; SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR
ADVOCATE FOR K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-
21; SRI V.KARTHIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-22 & 23)
*****
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.51948/2017 (LR-RES) DATED
05/01/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED
IN APPEAL NO.883/2015 DATED 13/10/2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H TO THE W.P. BY ALLOWING THE WRIT
APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, NAGARATHNA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
6
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal is preferred by the petitioners in W.P.No.51948/2017 (LR-RES), being aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petition by the learned single Judge, by order dated 05/01/2018.
2. In the writ petition, the appellants herein who were the petitioners, had assailed judgment dated 13/10/2017 (Annexure-H) rendered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for the sake of brevity) in Appeal No.883/2015.
3. The subject matter of the writ petition was 1,800 sq. ft. of land bearing Corporation No.26, carved out of Sy.No.134 of Khayamgutta Village, Binnamangala, presently, Indiranagar, Bengaluru. According to the petitioners, one Muniyellappa had acquired land bearing Corporation No.26, measuring east to west 60 ft. and north to south 83 ft. carved out of Sy.No.134 of 7 Khayamgutta Village, Binnamangala, Bengaluru, having acquired the same from its erstwhile owner N.K.Narasimha Chetty, under a registered sale deed dated 12/06/1957 (Annexure-A). That N.K.Narasimha Chetty had earlier acquired the said land under a registered sale deed dated 04/03/1940. That Muniyellappa and his wife Yellamma had no children and they had taken in adoption petitioner No.1, J. Raja and his brother, J.Ramamurthy. The adopted children were the sons of late Jayaram, brother of Muniyellappa. Petitioner No.2 is the son of petitioner No.1. On the demise of Muniyellappa, his widow Yellamma along with the adopted sons namely, J. Ramamurthy and J.Raja as well as her brother-in-law Jayaram sold a portion of premises bearing No.12/1, situated at Old Madras Road, New Binnamangala, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, measuring east to west 25 ft. and north to south 12 ft. along with the passage to an extent of 3 ft. x 16 ft. on the east in favour of Smt. Jayamma under a registered sale deed dated 06/04/1987 (Annexure-B), the remaining extent of 1,800 8 ft. is the subject matter of the instant case. Smt. Yellamma died on 10/08/1988 and after her death, petitioners continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property by paying taxes to the Corporation (BBMP).
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that Venkataraju (since deceased, represented by his legal representatives namely, respondent Nos.3 to 20 herein) and Muniraju (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives namely, respondent Nos.21 to 23) claiming to be the grand-sons of Bodappa, filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in case No.INA.CR.13/1997-98 seeking registration of occupancy rights in their favour in respect of Sy.Nos.130, 131 and 134 of the said village. The claimants namely, Venkataraju and Muniraju, inter alia, contended that the lands in Sy.Nos.130, 131 and 134 were leased in favour of their grand-father Bodappa by the then 9 jodidar of inam village i.e., Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliyar by executing a lease deed dated 05/07/1902 pursuant to which Bodappa was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands till his death in the year 1951. That Bodappa, during his life time, executed a Will dated 01/09/1949 bequeathing the said lands in favour of both the claimants i.e., Venkataraju and Muniraju.
5. On the enforcement of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), Binnamangala Village stood vested in the State as per notification dated 07/07/1958 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Special Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 12/07/1999 (Annexure-G to the writ petition), conferred occupancy rights in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.130, 131 and 134 of Khayamgutta, Binnamangala village in favour of claimants Venkataraju and Muniraju on the basis of their possession and enjoyment of the said lands. The 10 said order was assailed by the appellants herein by filing an Appeal No.883/2015 (Annexure-H) under Section 28 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its judgment dated 13/10/2017, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, petitioners - appellants herein preferred the writ petition and the same being dismissed, they have preferred this intra Court appeal.
6. The main grievance of the petitioners - appellants herein is that they were not notified by the Special Deputy Commissioner prior to passing of the order dated 12/07/1999. According to the petitioners, the said order was assailed by some of the tenants in respect of Sy.No.134 in W.P.No.50708/2004 and they filed appeal in W.A.No.6414/2013 before this Court impugning order dated 06/09/2013 passed in the said writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated 19/02/2015, observed that the appellants herein not being parties to the proceedings either before the Special Deputy 11 Commissioner or before the Appellate Tribunal or before the learned single Judge in W.P.No.50708/2004, could not straight away file the writ appeal challenging order dated 12/07/1999 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and that they ought to have filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, W.A.No.6414/2013 filed by the petitioners herein was disposed of by setting aside order dated 06/09/2013 as well as the judgment passed by the Tribunal. While doing so, the Division Bench reserved liberty to the appellants herein to file an appeal before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of the said judgment i.e., 19/02/2015 and a direction was issued to the Tribunal to consider all the connected matters pertaining to Sy.No.134 of Binnamangala Village and dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to all the parties.
7. Pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19/02/2015, petitioners herein 12 preferred an appeal before the Tribunal assailing the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 12/07/1999 relating to grant of occupancy rights in favour of Venkataraju and Muniraju, since deceased, represented by their legal representatives, in respect of an extent of 83 ft. x 60 ft. in 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Binnamangala Village. The Tribunal by judgment dated 13/10/2017 dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 12/07/1999. That the said judgment was assailed in the writ petition and on dismissal of the writ petition, this appeal has been filed by the petitioners.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 24, learned Senior Counsel for caveator/respondent No.21 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.22 and 23. Notice to respondent Nos.3 to 13 20 has been dispensed with. We have perused the material available on record.
9. Appellants' counsel contended that the learned single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition on the basis of orders passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases filed by N.Gangaiah, D. Ramaraju and Narasimha in two separate special leave petitions i.e., Special Leave to Appeal (CIVIL) Nos.6987/2002 and 5358/2002 respectively. That the judgment and orders passed in their cases would not apply to the petitioners herein. That the petitioners herein were not arrayed as parties before the Special Deputy Commissioner prior to the passing of order dated 12/07/1999 and therefore, the said order is a not binding on the petitioners. In the circumstances, the Division Bench had permitted the petitioners herein to assail order dated 12/07/1999 before the Tribunal. That the Tribunal has not appreciated the said aspect of the matter and has 14 dismissed the appeal which has been confirmed by the learned single Judge by dismissing the writ petition. He contended that the writ appeal may be considered for a detailed hearing.
10. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate and learned Senior Counsel and other counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the case of the respective parties and has concluded that the appellants have not traced their right, title and interest to any of the inamdars, but they have claimed to have become owners on the basis of the sale deeds, which have come into existence after the vesting of the land in the State Government under the Act, on which no reliance could be placed. That under Section 3 of the Act, vesting of lands in the State Government is free from all encumbrances and only those persons who have acquired right under the Act with respect to the land in question alone are interested persons and appellants are 15 not such persons. Therefore, they submitted that there is no merit in this appeal.
11. Learned single Judge has considered the orders and judgments passed in the case of N. Gangaiah, D.Ramaraju and Narasimha in detail, in which the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, dated 12/7/1999 were assailed by all of them and this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the said order. Therefore, learned single Judge has in detail considered the judgments passed in the writ petitions filed by the aforesaid three persons, the writ appeals filed as well as the dismissal of the special leave petitions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to conclude that order dated 12/07/1999 had attained finality in those proceedings and has accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
12. Further, on a reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is clear that admittedly, neither the appellants 16 herein nor their predecessor had filed any application under the Act seeking adjudication of their alleged rights created under the Act with respect to Sy.No.134. They have not established that they are interested persons, who could have filed an appeal under Section 28 of the Act. Further, Sy.No.134 being part of Binnamangala Village was an inam village. The inamdar was entitled to induct tenants on the lands or alienate the lands. Petitioners claimed to be in possession of land in Sy.No.134. However, they have not been able to establish in what capacity they are in possession of the said extent of land neither are they able to trace their right, title and interest to the land nor are they inamdars. Also no right has devolved on them for having purchased any portion of the land from the inamdar prior to the enforcement of the Act or any title is traced by the petitioners to the inamdar.
13. That Arcot Narayanaswamy Mudaliar was the inamdar of the Binnamangala Village. That by a deed of 17 perpetual lease dated 05/07/1902, the inamdar had inducted Bodappa as a tenant in respect of Sy.Nos.130, 131, 134, 135 and 136. A portion of Sy.No.134, which is the subject matter of this proceeding was part of the lease deed dated 05/07/1902. Bodappa had three sons, one of whom was Doddamarappa and respondent Nos.3 and 4 namely, Venkataraju and Muniraju who are the sons of Doddamarappa had filed the applications for re-grant of the lands in question as Bodappa by his Will dated 01/09/1949 had bequeathed his right in respect of Sy.Nos.130, 131 and 134 in favour of deceased respondent Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, they had filed applications for having established their tenancy rights with the inamdar. On the other hand, it has not been established by the petitioners as to how they had acquired any right, title or interest from the inamdar. Petitioners claim that Muniyellappa was the absolute owner of an extent of land in Sy.No.134 having purchased the same from N.K.Narasimha Chetty under a registered sale deed 18 dated 12/06/1957 and who had in turn acquired the same on 04/03/1940, but it is not clear as to from whom the said acquisition was made.
14. Further on the enforcement of the Act in the year 1954, all inam lands stood vested in the State Government pursuant to notification dated 07/07/1958 issued under the provisions of the said Act. In the absence of the petitioners tracing their right, title and interest to the inamdar, they had no right to be heard in the proceeding before the Special Deputy Commissioner, which was initiated by Venkataraju and Muniraju, since deceased and represented by their legal heirs respondent Nos.3 to 20 and 21 to 23 respectively, which has culminated in the order dated 12/07/1999, although this Court granted an opportunity to the petitioners to establish their case before the Tribunal. That apart, as already noted, the said order has been sustained in several litigations upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the circumstances, we are of the 19 considered view that the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. We find no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE S*