Karnataka High Court
Sri C Diwakar vs Deputy Commissioner on 14 June, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No. 17158 of 2012 [KLR-RES]
C/W
WRIT PETITION No. 28669 of 2018 [KLR-LG]
In W.P.No.17158/2012
BETWEEN:
SRI.C.DIWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O LATE C.N.CHANDRE GOWDA,
RESIDENT OF CHEEKANAHALLI VILLAGE
AND POST, BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KEMPANNA ADV. FOR
SRI. R.CHANDRANNA, ADV.)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN.
2. SRI. T.SHEKAR SUVARNA,
MAJOR,
S/O DUGGAPPAIAH,
CHEEKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT
2
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
2(a) SMT. KAMALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
W/O LATE SHEKAR SUVARNA,
2(b) SMT. LALITHA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
D/O LATE SHEKAR SUVARNA,
2(c) SRI.RAVINDRA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHEKAR SUVARNA,
2(d) SMT.HEMALATHA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D/O LATE SHEKAR SUVARNA,
2(e) SRI.RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHEKAR SUVARNA,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHEEKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BELURU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.
3. SRI.H.M.THAMME GOWDA,
MAJOR,
S/O MALLE GOWDA,
HETHUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI. SANTOSH RAJ.C. DESHAMUKH ADV.FOR
SRI. V.M.SHEELAVANT ADV.FOR R-2(a) TO R-2(e);
NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, VIDE ORDER
DATED:28.06.2012.)
3
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.04.2012 MADE IN APPEAL
No.420/2008 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND ALSO THE ORDER
DATED 18.12.2007 (ANNEXURE-"B") MADE IN CASE
No.LND(2)01/2002-03 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, & ETC.
In W.P.No.28669/2018:
BETWEEN:
SHEKHAR SUVARNA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
1. KAMALAMMA,
W/O LATE SHEKHAR SUVARNA,
AGE 77 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O AREHALLI HOBLI, CHEEKANAHALLI POST,
BELUR, DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 115.
2. R.S.LALITHA,
W/O LATE SRINIVAS,
AGE 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O 6014, SHOBHA RUBY,
NAGASANDRA TUMUKUR,
BENGALURU - 560 073.
3. R.S.HEMALATHA,
W/O M.S.NARAYANA,
AGE 56 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O SHRINIVAS NAIDU BUILDING,
BELUR ROAD KOTE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
4
4. R.S.RAMESH,
S/O LATE SHEKHAR SUVARNA,
AGE 53 YEARS,
OCC:COFFEE PLANTER,
R/O CHEEKANAHALLI,
POST:AREHALLI HOBLI,
VIA BELUR, DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 115.
5. RAVINDRA SUVARANA.R.S.
S/O LATE SHEKHAR SUVARNA,
AGE 58 YEARS,
PRIVATE COMPANY,
R/O #2580/2, MATHA PITRU KRUPA,
MCC A BLOCK, CHURCH ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH RAJ.C.DESHAMUKH ADV.FOR
SRI. V.M.SHEELAVANT, ADV)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 571 112.
2. NUMAN ADIL,
S/O LATE ADUL QUDDOS,
AGE 51 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHEEKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 112.
3. MOHAMMAD IQBAL,
S/O LATE ABDUL QUDDOS,
AGE 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHEEKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 112.
4. H.M.THIMMEGOUDA,
5
S/O MALLEGOUDA,
AGED MAJOR,
OCC:AGRICULTURIST,
R/O HETHUR VILLAGE, HETHUR HOBLI,
SAKALESHPUR TALUKA,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 112. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI. SHANMUKAPPA ADV. FOR C/R-3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER IN APPEAL No.569/2011 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
DATED:15.09.2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D, & ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. After a protracted litigation between respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Deputy Commissioner ultimately passed an order of grant in favour of the deceased respondent No.2-Shekhar Suvarna on 18.12.2007. However, while granting 9 acres 10 guntas in favour of the Shekhar Suvarna, the Deputy Commissioner has stated as follows:
6
"(2) ªÁzÀUÀæ¸ÀÛ ¥ÀæzÃÉ ±ÀzÀ EwÛÃa£À ¹ÜwAiÀÄ §UÉÎ vÀº² À ïÁÝgï, ¨ÉîÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ EªÀjAzÀ ªÀg¢ À ¥ÀqA É iÀįÁV ¸À.£ÀAB127 gÀ 6.30 JPÀgÉ ¥ÀæzÃÉ ±Àz° À è £ÉƪÀÄ£ï C¢¯ï gÀªg À ÀÄ C£À¢Pü ÀÈvÀªÁV ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½AiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢zÀÄÝ, EzÉà ¸Àªð É £ÀA§gï£À°è ¢ªÁPÀgÀ ©£ï ZÀAzÉæÃUËqÀ gÀªg À ÄÀ ¸ÀºÀ C£À¢Pü ÀÈvÀªÁV ¸ÁUÀĽAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀÅzÁV Cfð ¸À°¹ è gÀÄvÁÛg.É F §UÉÎ ªÉÄîÌAqÀªg À ÀÄUÀ½AzÀ «ªÀgu À É ¥ÀqA É iÀįÁVzÉ. ¸Àzj À AiÀĪÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1982-83£Éà ¸Á°£À ¥ÀƪÀð¢AzÀ®Æ ¸À.£ÀAB127gÀ ¥ÀæzÃÉ ±Àz° À è C£À¢Pü ÀÈvÀªÁV ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½AiÀÄ°ègÀÄzÁV «ªÀgÀuÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛg.É DzÀgÉ £ÉÆêÀÄ£ï C¢®ï gÀªg À ÀÄ 13.18 JPÀgÉ RÄ¶Ì d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ 65.20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛg.É DzÀgÉ §UÀgï ºÀÄPÀÄA ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½AiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è »qÀĪÀ½ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÉÃj 4.38 d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÉÃj 4.38 d«ÄãÀÄ «ÄÃgÀzA À vÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÉ CªÀPÁ±À«zÀÄÝ, ¥Àæ¸ÀÄv Û À ¥ÀæPg À t À zÀ°è C£À¢Pü ÀÈvÀ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½zÁgÀgÁzÀ £ÉÆêÀÄ£ï C¢¯ï gÀªg À ÀÄ RÄ¶Ì d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÉÃj 65.20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀjUÉ §UÀgï ºÀÄPÀÄA ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼r À AiÀÄ°è d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÉ CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
CzÀÝjAzÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸  ® À Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¥Àjòð¹ F PɼPÀ A À qÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.
DzÉñÀ
±ÉÃRgï ¸ÀĪÀtð gÀªg
À ÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆj PÉÆÃj ¸À°¹
è zÀ
CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆj §UÉÎ ¥ÀjUÀt¹  ¸À.£ÀA.:127gÀ°è G½PÉ 9.10 JPÀgÉ ¥ÀæzÃÉ ±Àª£ À ÀÄß ±ÉÃRgï ¸ÀĪÀtð gÀªj À UÉ ªÀÄAdÆj ªÀiÁr DzÉò¹zÉ.
vÀº² À ïÁÝgï ¨ÉîÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ aÃn ¤ÃzÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß C£À¢Pü ÀÈvÀ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½zÁgÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß RįÁè¥r À ¹ ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ aÃn «vÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."
7
2. As could be seen from the above passage, the Deputy Commissioner records a finding that Numan Adil and C.Diwakar were in unauthorised possession of the land in Sy.No.127. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner also records a finding that Numan Adil and C.Diwakar were in unauthorised possession of the lands even prior to 1982-83. It is also observed that C.Diwakar had made an application regarding unauthorised cultivation. The Deputy Commissioner has thereafter proceeded to observe that Numan Adil was not entitled for the land since his holding of lands was excess.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, however, despite recording that C.Diwakar was in unauthorised possession, does not even consider the case of C.Diwakar and ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner grants the land measuring 09 acres 10 guntas in favour of T.Shekhar Suvarna.
8
4. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by Numan Adil in Appeal No.569 of 2011 and also by C.Diwakar in Appeal No.420 of 2008, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Numan Adil and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law. A direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner to issue a notice to Numan Adil and all others who were found to be in unauthorised occupation of land in Sy.No.127 and then to afford them an opportunity of putting forth their claim, if any, in respect of their unauthorised occupation and consider their claim for grant of land if they were found to be in actual possession and enjoyment, pass appropriate orders.
5. A direction was also issued by the Appellate Tribunal to initiate proceedings for eviction of unauthorised occupants of land bearing Sy.No.127, if the persons in occupation were found to be ineligible for the 9 grant and thereafter consider the application by T.Shekhar Suvarna.
6. This order was passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 15.09.2017.
7. However, the appeal filed by C.Diwakar was dismissed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 28.04.2012 on the ground that the order of grant was in consonance with the order dated 25.02.1991 passed in W.P. No.7013 of 1984.
8. As a consequence, as against the two contradictory orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, T.Shekhar Suvarna is before this Court in W.P. No.28669 of 2018 (challenging the order passed in favour of Numan Adil in Appeal No.569 of 2011) and C.Diwakar is before this Court in W.P. No.17158 of 2012 (challenging the dismissal of his appeal bearing Appeal No.420 of 2008).
10
9. As noticed above, the Deputy Commissioner while passing an order of grant in favour of T.Shekhar Suvarna has categorically recorded a finding that Numan Adil and C.Diwakar were in unauthorised possession of the land in Sy.No.127 right from the year 1982-83. The Deputy Commissioner has also observed that C.Diwakar had also made an application for regularisation.
10. In the light of these findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that Numan Adil and C.Diwakar were in unauthorised possession of certain extent of land bearing Sy.No.127, the Deputy Commissioner could not have proceeded to pass an order of grant in favour of T.Shekhar Suvarna. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide on the eligibility or ineligibility for the grant of either Numan Adil or C.Diwakar while deciding the claim of T.Shekhar Suvarna for grant of land. On that score also, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. 11
11. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the Deputy Commissioner granting 09 acres 10 guntas in favour of T.Shekhar Suvarna cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. As a consequence, the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal passed in Appeal No.420 of 2008 affirming the said order shall also stand quashed.
12. The order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal passed in Appeal No.569 of 2011, by which the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction to issue notice to Numan Adil and also others who were found to be in unauthorised possession in Sy.No.127 and to hear them on their claim and pass appropriate orders if they were found to be eligible, is hereby confirmed.
13. The Deputy Commissioner shall, in accordance with the directions of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, notify the persons in possession of Sy.No.127, including Numan Adil and C.Diwakar, and if it is found that they were in 12 unauthorised occupation and had applied for regularisation, he shall direct the concerned to initiate appropriate proceedings for regularisation.
14. However, if the Deputy Commissioner comes to the conclusion that Numan Adil and C.Diwakar are ineligible for regularisation, he shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
15. It is to be stated here that as per the amendment, the claims for regularisation will have to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner on the recommendation of the Tahasildar. It would, therefore, be necessary for the Deputy Commissioner to secure the report from the Tahasildar regarding the claim of C.Diwakar and also regarding the claim of Numan Adil, if Numan Adil has made an application for regularisation, and thereafter pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
16. Writ Petition No.28669 of 2018 filed by T.Shekhar Suvarna and others is dismissed. Writ Petition 13 No.17158 of 2012 filed by C.Diwakar is allowed to the extent stated above.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK CT: SN