Karnataka High Court
H B Rajanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 July, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP.28469/2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.28469/2009 (LR)
BETWEEN:
H.B.Rajanna
S/o B.Bheemaiah
Aged about 55 years
R/at Kulikunte,
Kasaba Hobli, Koratagere Taluk,
Tumkur District. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri Harish H.V., Adv., Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Dept.of Revenue,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-01.
2. The Land Tribunal
Kortagere Taluk,
Koratagere.
3. Assistant Commissioner,
Madhugiri Sub-Division,
Madhugiri, Tumkur Dist.
4. The Tahsildar,
Kortagere Taluk,
Koratagere, Tumkur Dist.
5. Sri Kavalappa
S/o Doddaiah
WP.28469/2009
2
Aged about 61 years
R/at Sonnenahalli
Holavanahalli Hobli,
Kortagere Taluk,
Tumkur District. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Shashidhar S.Kalmadi, HCGP for R1-R4)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
16.12.1981 passed by the respondent No.2 in LRF
(CR)346/1974-75 vide Annexure-A and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing 'B' Group
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.12.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Koratagere Taluk, in Case No.LRF (CR) 346/1974-75. By the said order, the Tribunal has conferred occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.35/2 Old No.129 situated at Sonnenahalli Village, Holavanahalli Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District, in favour of respondent No.5 herein.
2. Petitioner claimed occupancy rights in respect of the land in question along with several others contending that his father was conferred occupancy rights as per Section 9(A) of the WP.28469/2009 3 Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and that he has continued in possession of the property as a tenant. As is apparent from the impugned order, the 5th respondent had impleaded H.Krishnachar, H.S.Ahobalachar and H.N.Raghavendrachar of Holavanahalli as respondents. The impugned order does not make it clear as to how the said respondents were connected with the land.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the rights in the land in question was sold by the father of the 5th respondent by name Doddaiah in favour of one H.K.Siddalingappa by a registered Sale Deed dated 28.12.1965, without impleading the said H.K.Siddalingappa, the 5th respondent made an application seeking conferment of occupancy rights. It is further contended that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser from H.K.Siddalingappa under a registered Sale Deed 10.03.1997 produced at Annexure-D and without noticing the said fact, the 5th respondent has made an application seeking grant of occupancy rights and the Tribunal has passed such an order as per Annexure-A impugned herein way back in the year 1981.
WP.28469/20094
4. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 5th respondent, who is none other than the son of Doddaiah who had sold the property to the vendor of the petitioner way back in the year 1965, without impleading the vendor of the petitioner (H.K.Siddlingappa), has obtained the impugned order. The Tribunal, without examining any of the revenue records and without bothering to find out who was the actual owner of the property as on the date the land vested with the Government or as on the date the enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal, has proceeded to pass a cryptic order.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent taking me through the statement of objections filed submits that the alleged Sale Deed executed by the father of the 5th respondent - Doddaiah on 28.12.1965 is not admitted and no rights got transferred in favour of H.K.Siddalingappa by the said Deed. He therefore submits that the petitioner who is the purchaser in the year 1997 from H.K.Siddalingappa cannot make any grievance based on such sale transaction. It is also contended by him that the petitioner, being the purchaser in the year 1997 after the occupancy right was granted in favour of the 5th WP.28469/2009 5 respondent way back in the year 1981, cannot maintain this writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the pleadings including the impugned order, I find that Doddaiah who is none other than the father of the 5th respondent was registered as occupant of the land way back on 16.04.1962. He has executed a registered Sale Deed dated 28.12.1965 transferring his rights in the property in favour of H.K.Siddalingappa and the said H.K.Siddalingappa in turn has sold his rights in the said land in favour of the petitioner by executing a Sale Deed on 10.03.1997. The 5th respondent, therefore, ought to have made H.K.Siddalingappa as a party respondent while filing the application, if he was keen on getting the occupancy right registered. He has not chosen to do so.
7. It is not forthcoming how H.Krishnachar, H.S.Ahobalachar and H.N.Raghavendrachar were connected with the land in question. The Tribunal has not referred to the revenue records to find out who were the interested persons. There is nothing to show whether H.K.Siddalingappa's name was recorded in the revenue record pursuant to the Sale Deed WP.28469/2009 6 executed in his favour on 28.12.1965 by the father of the 5th respondent. But the fact remains that the 5th respondent's name has not been recorded in the revenue records and as of now the name of the petitioner finds place in the revenue record in respect of this survey number. The RTC extract of the year 2006-07 is produced at Annexure-E to demonstrate this position. In such circumstances, this writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay as the omission is on the part of the 5th respondent who is the beneficiary of the order of the Tribunal in not impleading the purchaser from his father H.K.Siddalingappa as a party - respondent while filing the application seeking occupancy rights. Even otherwise, a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal does not disclose any reasons assigned in respect of the conclusion reached for conferring occupancy rights in favour of the 5th respondent. As the petitioner is a proper and necessary party and as he has stepped into the shoes of his vendor H.K.Siddalingappa, the petitioner has to be heard by the Tribunal before passing any order on the application filed for the occupancy rights.
8. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to hear WP.28469/2009 7 the matter afresh by providing fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the 5th respondent and then pass an order in accordance with law. All contentions urged on merits are left open.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS