Karnataka High Court
M V Shrinivasa Gowda vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 21 September, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP 9060/2002
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.9060/2002 (LR-)
BETWEEN:
M.V.SHRINIVASA GOWDA
SINCE DECEASED BY L.Rs.
(a) SMT.VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE M.V.SRINIVASA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
(b) SRI RAJENDRA GOWDA
S/O LATE M.V.SRINIVASA GOWDA
AGED 52 YEARS
(C) SRI VENATASWAMY GOWDA N.S.
S/O LATE M.V.SRINIVASA GOWDA
AGED 50 YEARS
(D) SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA
D/O LATE M.V.SRINIVASA GOWDA
AGED 47 YEARS
(E) SMT.RUKMANI GOWDA
D/O LATE M.V.SRINIVASA GOWDA
AGED 46 YEARS
(F) SRI PRABHAKAR GOWDA
S/O LATE M.V.SRINIVASA GOWDA
AGED 45 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A NULUGUMMANAHALLY VILLAGE,
MANCHENAHALLY HOBLI,
GAURIBIDANUR TALUK.
KOLAR DIST. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADV. FOR MYLARAIAH ASSTS.)
WP 9060/2002
2
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE -1
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
GAURIBIDANUR TALUK,
KOLAR DIST.
3. SMT LAKSHMINARASAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS.
(A) SRI M.V.VENKATASWAMY GOWDA
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAMMA
AGED 63 YEARS
(B) SRI M.V.VENKATEGOWDA
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAMMA
AGED 61 YEARS
(C) SMT.NARASAMMA
D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAMMA
AGED 60 YEARS
(D) SMT.PADMAVATHI
D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAMMA
AGED 57 YEARS
(E) SMT.BHARATHI
D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAMMA
AGED 55 YEARS
(F) SMT.RAMADEVI
D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAMMA
AGED 53 YEARS
(G) SRI M.V.RAMESH
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAMMA
AGED 50 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A NULUGUMMANAHALLY VILLAGE,
MANCHENAHALLY HOBLI,
GAURIBIDANUR TALUK.
KOLAR DIST. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. DESHRAJ P.CHANGALRAYA REDDY, ADV. FOR R3(A)-(E),
SRI SHASHIDHAR S.KARMADI, G.P. FOR R1 & 2)
WP 9060/2002
3
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order
dated 29.12.2001 by the Land Tribunal, Gauribidanur Taluk,
vide Annexure-F and etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing-B group
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is calling in question the order dated 29.12.2001 passed by the Land Tribunal, Gowribidanur, in Case No.LRA/143/73-74.
2. By the impugned order, the application filed by respondent No.3 - Lakshminarasamma which is stated to be in Form No.7/7A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'KLR Act'), has been allowed granting occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing Sy. No.5/11 measuring 14 guntas, Sy. No.5/10 measuring 4 acres 30 guntas, Sy. No.1/1 measuring 6 acres 27 guntas, and Sy. No.1/4 measuring 7 guntas, all situated at Nulugummanahalli village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk.
3. Petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent and was described as owner of the land under whom the lands were stated to have been cultivated as tenant by the applicant. It is relevant to notice that Smt. Adilakshmamma - mother of the WP 9060/2002 4 present petitioner and the mother-in-law of respondent No.3, had earlier filed W.P.No.30658/1993 challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 29.03.1982 rejecting the application filed in Form No.7. This Court set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal on the ground that all the three members of the Tribunal had not signed the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the matter required fresh consideration in accordance with law. Pursuant to this order, the Tribunal has taken up the case for consideration and has passed the impugned order.
4. The main contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Land Tribunal ought not to have granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3 as the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established between them. It is further stated that the mother of the petitioner i.e., Adilakshmamma had bequeathed all the properties in favour of the petitioner by a registered Will dated 26.08.1974 and upon the death of Adilakshmamma during the year 1985, the bequest has come into force and the petitioner has acquired absolute right, title and interest over the properties. WP 9060/2002 5
5. Refuting these contentions, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MUNIYALLAPPA VS KRISHNAMURTHY.B.M. & OTHERS - 1977(1) KLJ 389, contends that in view of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, 'Inams Abolition Act') resulting in conferment of occupancy rights in favour of three branches of the common ancestor late Patel Venkatswamy Gowda who was the Jodidhar of the inam village, proceedings before the Land Tribunal could not have been initiated by filing Form No.7 or for that matter Form No.7A and therefore what has been settled already by passing orders by the competent authority under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, could not have been re-opened by the Land Tribunal. In support of the said contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexures-R4, R5 & R6.
6. Annexure-R4 is the order passed in Case No.33/59-60 allowing the application filed under Section 9(A) of the Inams Abolition Act, whereunder occupancy rights are granted in respect different portions of Sy. Nos.1/6, 1/3, 2/1, 3/6 & 2/10 in favour of the petitioner. Annexure-R5 is the order passed in WP 9060/2002 6 Case No.44/59-60 allowing the application filed under Section 9(A) of the Inams Abolition Act, whereunder occupancy rights are granted in respect different portions of Sy. Nos.1/4, 1/1, 5/6, 5/10 & 5/11 in favour of the husband of respondent No.3. Likewise, Annexure-R6 is the endorsement issued showing that as per Section 9(A) of the Inams Abolition Act, respondent No.3 has been conferred occupancy rights under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act.
7. It is not in dispute that certain other lands held by the Jodidhar have been granted in favour of his third son Suryanarayana Gowda on a separate application filed by him under Section 9(A) of the Inams Abolition Act. Thus, it is clear that the family of the original inamdar has taken the benefit under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act and has been conferred occupancy rights in respect of different portions of lands and the said orders have attained finality.
8. In respect of the very same lands, no application under the provisions of the KLR Act can be maintained by filing Form No.7 under Section 48A by the very same beneficiaries. The Tribunal could not have assumed jurisdiction to examine the matter unmindful of the orders already passed by the WP 9060/2002 7 competent authority under the Inams Abolition Act, as the claim in respect of these lands has already attained finality and as the lands belonging to the inamdars who have separately made applications seeking occupancy rights in respect of different portions of lands, the Tribunal was not justified in embarking upon an inquiry on the claim of tenancy under the provisions of the KLR Act. Such an application cannot be maintained by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has already been benefited by way of the order passed by the competent authority conferring occupancy rights as per the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.
9. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside making it clear that the grant made in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.3 and the third branch represented by Suryanarayana Gowda having attained finality, the parties are required to settle down to their claims as held by the competent authority under the Inams Abolition Act.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK