Karnataka High Court
Smt. Avvamma vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 (NOC) 1598 (KAR), 2006 (5) AIR KANT HCR 177, 2006 A I H C 3159, (2006) 4 KANT LJ 689, (1995) 8 JT 599 (SC), (1996) 27 ALL LR 76, (1999) 1 LANDLR 279
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner states that Malakappa had two sons by name Gurulingappa and Bhimshya. Gurulingappa had three sons one of whom was Adiveppa and his wife Kamalawa. Bhimshya had three sons viz., Malekappa, Mahadevappa and Basavanthappa. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of Bhimshya and sister of Basavanthappa. The petition averments disclose that in a partition between Gurulingappa and Bhimshya, the land measuring 10 acres 38 guntas being a portion of Sy. No. 198A/4 of Sirakanahalli Village, Indi Taluk, fell to the share of Gurulingappa and the remaining portion in favour of Bhimshya. After the death of Gurulingappa, his son Adiveppa exercised rights over the said immovable property, and on his death, his widow Kamalawa, the 7th respondent, is said to have succeeded to the estate of the deceased.
2. It is the assertion of the petitioner that by the wardi (report) during the year 1991, the revenue authorities entered the name of Adiveppa's widow, 7th respondent as the owner of the property in question having succeeded to the same, evident from the mutation entry bearing ME No. 2055, dated 23-12-1991, Annexure-A. Thereafter, the 7th respondent is said to have given up her right over the said property in favour of Basavanthappa s/o Bhimshya, as recorded in ME No. 2056 mentioned in column (9) of the RTC phani, dated 26-1-1995, Annexure-B. Basavanthappa in turn is said to have given up his right over the said immovable property in favour of the petitioner herein, as recorded by the revenue authorities in ME No. 2225, dated 25-2-1995, Annexure-C. Thus, the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of the immovable property in question.
3. Respondents 3 to 6 filed a declaration dated 1-6-1987 in Form I under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Rules, 1979 (for short 'Rules'), for being registered as occupants of the lands in question. The Land Tribunal, in the first instance, rejected the declaration which when questioned in a writ proceeding was quashed and the proceeding remitted for fresh consideration. On remand, the 7th respondent appeared before the Land Tribunal and gave her statement that one Nagappa the father of respondents 3 to 6 was the cultivator of the land in question prior to and on the appointed date and that she had no objection for grant of occupancy rights in their favour. The Tribunal on the basis of the said statement of the 7th respondent passed the order Annexure-F, dated 22-2-2002 granting occupancy rights over the land in question in favour of respondents 3 to 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this petition.
4. The petition is opposed by respondents 3 to 6 by filing their statement of objections dated 17-9-2004 inter alia contending that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition as having no right, title or interest over the property in question. According to the respondents, the genealogical tree Annexure-Rl issued by the Village Accountant, discloses that the petitioner is not the sister of Basavanthappa. It is further contended that in the absence of a registered document transferring the right, title and interest in the immovable property in question, a mutation entry made by the revenue authorities cannot substitute a legal transfer of immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The RTC record for the years 1974 through 1983, Annexure-R2, discloses the name of the father of the respondents 3 to 6 as cultivator and deny that the Tahsildar deleted the said name on the basis of the endorsement Annexure-E.
5. Sri G.G. Chagashetti, learned Counsel for the petitioner advances the following contentions:
(a) The Tribunal fell in error in not noticing that the Form I, dated 1-6-1987 filed by respondents 3 to 6 for grant of occupancy rights under the Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, is not maintainable as it is filed beyond the period of limitation;
(b) that in view of the Mutation Entry No. 2056, dated 31-5-1991 by which property stood transferred to Basavanthappa and the subsequent Mutation Entry No. 2225, dated 25-2-1995, Annexure-C by which the petitioner claims to have acquired right, title and interest over the immovable property in question, demonstrates that the petitioner was a proper and necessary party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, and having not been made a party, proceedings are vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice;
(c) It is next contended that the order of the Tahsildar Annexure-E directing the deletion of the names of the respondents 3 to 6 from column (11) in the RTC Phani having become final and binding, the Land Tribunal fell in error in granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3 to 6.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents 3 to 6 reiterates the contentions urged in the statement of objections and maintains that the order impugned is well-merited, fully justified, not calling for interference.
7. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner need not detain the Court for long. Section 11 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, provides To be read as 31st March, 1991, [31st March, 1999] as the last date for filing of declaration for being registered as an occupant of the lands. The declaration in Form I, filed on 1-6-1987, by respondents 3 to 6, for being registered as occupants of the lands in question, admittedly inam lands, is well-within the period stipulated by law and hence maintainable. The first contention stands rejected.
8. At Paragraph 1 of the writ petition describing the genealogy of the family of late Malakappa, the petitioner is not shown as one of the children of Bhimshya. since the names of the children as mentioned are Malekappa, Mahadevappa and Basavanthappa. The genealogical tree Annexure-Rl issued by the Village Accountant discloses that the petitioner is the daughter of Madivalappa Mareppa Valikar, and not the daughter of Bhimshya. There is no contest to Annexure-Rl - by filing a rejoinder to the statement of objections. That Gurulingappa and Bhimshya constituted a joint Hindu family and that the agricultural lands in question fell to the share of Adiveppa, and thereafter by succession, to his widow the 7th respondent, are admitted facts. The extract of the Mutation Entry No. 2055, Annexure-A discloses that the agricultural lands measuring 11 acres in Sy. No. 198/A is shown against the name of the 7th respondent, while portions of the property in the same Sy. No. 198/A are shown against the names of Basavanthappa and his brother Mahadevappa. The immovable properties, admittedly, fallen to the shares of the respective members of the joint family, resulted in a vardi as recorded in the Mutation Entry No. 2055, Annexure-A, poses no difficulty in accepting the same as evidence of distribution of joint family properties, during the year 1991, and the disruption of the joint family status.
9. It is next asserted that the 7th respondent, widow of Adiveppa transferred her right, title and interest over the land and fell to her share in favour of her brother-in-law Basavanthappa on the basis of a vardi recorded by the revenue authorities in ME No. 2056 during the year 1994-95 as disclosed in column (9) of the RTC Annexure-B. This contention is denied and is strongly contested. Merely on the basis of an alleged wardi could it be said that a legal transfer of the right, title and interest in the immovable property could be effected? The so-called wardi is not in the form of a registered document evidencing transfer of immovable property. The nature of the wardi as to whether it was oral or in writing, if so the identity of the persons who gave the report, are material particulars not forthcoming in this petition. Transfer of immovable property, it is trite to be legal, must be in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the facts of this case, in the absence of a registered document of transfer of immovable property, the wardi per se cannot constitute a valid and legal transfer of immovable property.
10. That a partition and separation of the joint family status as between the two brothers namely Gurulingappa and Bhimshya is specifically pleaded by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that after the death of Adivappa, the 7th respondent succeeded to the property in question and was her absolute property. It is also an admitted fact that there is no document executed and duly registered, transferring the immovable property in question in favour of Basavanthappa, by the 7th respondent. Thus, Basavanthappa's claim of right, title and interest in the immovable property in question, on the basis of the Mutation Entry No. 2056, is unacceptable. The mutation entry, recorded by the revenue authorities cannot substitute for a registered deed of transfer of immovable property so as to invest a title in immovable property in question in. favour of Basavanthappa.
11. Similarly, the Mutation Entry No. 2225, dated 25-2-1995, Annexure-C whereunder Basavanthappa is said to have transferred his right, title and interest in the immovable property in question in favour of the petitioner, too, has no evidentiary value, in the absence of a valid registered document and no credence could be attached to the contents of the Mutation Entry No. 2225 Annexure-C. In addition there is no material to establish that the petitioner is the blood sister of Basavanthappa. The contention that the petitioner is a proper and necessary party in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal is without any merit and is accordingly, rejected.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that Annexure-E order of the Tahsildar directing the deletion of the names of respondents 3 to 6 from column (11), in the RTC phani, as it is a bogus entry, establishes that the declarants were not tenants of the property in question on the appointed date. The fallacy of this contention is established from the fact that Annexure-E, letter dated 28-2-1990 addressed to the Village Accountant by the Tahsildar, apparently is not preceded by an enquiry as contemplated by Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Whenever an entry in the revenue records, is to be deleted or substituted by a new entry, the statute imposes a duty on the revenue authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and after due notice to the parties concerned and an opportunity of hearing ought to pass orders. The respondents 3 to 6 dispute the letter Annexure-C of the Tahsildar. The order of the Tahsildar, in a legally instituted proceeding is not forthcoming from the records, except for the letter Annexure-E stating that the names of respondents 3 to 6 need to be deleted from column (11), in the RTC phani, on account of the entry being bogus. Since serious civil consequences flow from a finding that the entry is bogus, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to place relevant material on record constituting substantial legal evidence of a proceeding to delete the names of respondents 3 to 6 from the RTC phani at the behest of Basavanta Bhimanna Natekar. The letter Annexure-C is inconsequential and illegal having no evidentiary value. In my considered opinion, no credence could be attached to the contents of a letter Annexure-E by which the claim of tenancy rights of respondents 3 to 6 over the land in question could be negated.
13. There is also no material on record to establish as to how the name of the petitioner came to be entered as the cultivator of the lands as disclosed in Annexure-D for the year 1994 onwards, without a valid legal proceeding and order directing deletion of the name of the father of respondents 3 to 6. Having regard to the deposition of the 7th respondent that the declarant's father was the tenant of the land in question and the respondents 3 to 6 were entitled to be registered as occupants of the lands, the entries in the RTC phani Annexure-D for the year 1994 onwards pales into insignificance. The finding of the Land Tribunal that the lands in question were lawfully tenanted as on 1-3-1974, the appointed date, cannot be found fault with.
14. The order impugned is neither shown to suffer from any infirmities in law nor substantiated to be based on no evidence or vitiated on account of any perversity of approach to call for a different conclusion and interfere with the verdict.
The writ petition is without merit and is accordingly, rejected.