Bangalore District Court
In Lac No.95/17 vs The Slao on 28 November, 2022
1
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
KABC010286652017
I N THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 28 th day of November, 2022.
PRESENT:
Smt. Sheila B.M., M.Com.,LLM.
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
: LAND ACQUISITION CASE No.95/2017
C/w LAC No.45/2022:
CLAIMANTS
IN LAC No.95/17:
1. Sri. Galiswamy,
S/o late. Galappa,
Residing at No.37,
2nd Main Road,
BTM Layout, 2nd Stage,
BHCS Layout,
Bengaluru-560 076.
2. Sri. Narasimhaiah,
Dead by his LRS
2(A) Smt. Lakshmamma,
W/o late Narasimhaiah,
2(B) Sri. N.Murthy,
S/o late Narasimhaiah,
2
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
2(C) Sri. B.N.Jayarama,
S/o late Narasimhaiah,
2(D) Sri. B.N.Radhakrishna,
S/o late Narasimhaiah,
2(E) Sri. B.N.Somashekar,
S/o late Narasimhaiah,
All are R/at:
Bheemanakuppe Grama,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru.
3. Smt. Harinakshi Ashok,
W/o late Sri. L.C.Ashok,
Aged about 74 years,
4. Smt. Roopashree Ashok,
D/o late Sri. L.C.Ashok,
Aged about 49 years,
5. Sri. Ramanand Ashok Gowda,
S/o late Sri. L.C.Ashok,
Aged about 48 years,
All are R/at: No.8,
Walton Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
(Sri. MNS, Advocate for C1)
(Sri. DJJ, Advocate for C2)
(Sri. NK, Advocate for C3-C5)
3
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT: The SLAO,
Bengaluru Development
Authority, Sankey Road,
Bengaluru-560 070.
(Sri.MG, Advocate for R)
CLAIMANTS
IN LAC
NO. 45/22 : 1. Sri. N.Murthy,
S/o late Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 58 years
2. Sri. B.N.Jayarama,
S/o late Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 52 years
3. Sri. B.N.Ramakrishna
S/o late Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 50 years
4. Sri. B.N.Radhakrishna,
S/o late Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 48 years
5. Sri. B.N.Somashekar,
S/o late Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 45 years
All are R/at:
Bheemanakuppe Grama,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru.
4
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
6. Khasim Sab
Bheemanakuppe Grama,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru.
7. Smt. Harinakshi Ashok
W/o late. L.C. Ashok
8. Smt. Roopashree Ashok
D/o late. L.C. Ashok
9. Sri. Ramananda Ashok Gowda
S/o late. L.C. Ashok
No.8, Wall Town road,
Bengaluru -560 001.
(Sri. VBS, Advocate for C-1 to 5)
(Sri. NK, Advocate for C-7 to 9)
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT: The Special Land Acquisition
Officer (ALAO),
Bengaluru Development
Authority, Sankey Road,
Bengaluru-560 020.
(Sri.MG, Advocate for R)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The respondent No.1 has sent the reference
( L.A.C. No. 95/2017) under Sections 30 and 31(2)
5
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred
as L.A. Act for short) for apportionment of
compensation amount.
.2. The brief facts of the case is that the land
bearing Sy.No. 10/1 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas
situated at Bheemanakuppe village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka has been acquired for the
purpose of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout. The
preliminary notification was published in the
Gazette on 22.05.2008. The final notification was
published in the Gazette on 18.02.2010. The
consent award has been passed. The award has
been passed at Rs. 80,00,000/- for wet land and Rs.
10,00,000/- for phoot kharab. As there was a
dispute with regard to the title, reference has been
sent to this Court and the L.A.O. has deposited the
award amount of Rs.42,00,000/-. The said amount
6
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
has been kept in F.D. in the Karnataka Bank, City
Civil Court branch, Bengaluru until further orders.
.3. The respondent No.1 has sent the reference
in L.A.C. No. 45/2022 under Sections 30 and
31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after
referred as L.A. Act for short) for apportionment of
compensation amount.
.4. The brief facts of the case is that the land
bearing Sy.No. 10/2 measuring 3 acre 19 guntas
out of which 4 guntas is kharab, situated at
Bheemanakuppe village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluka has been acquired for the purpose of
Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout. The consent
award has been passed. As per the consent award,
Narasimhaiah S/o Nanjundappa out of 3 acres 5
guntas is entitled for cash compensation of Rs.
1,64,00,000/- in-respect of 2 acres 2 guntas and in-
respect of 1 acre 3 guntas, he is entitled for
7
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
developed site of 10302 sq. feet. Khasim Sab is
entitled for cash compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-
in-respect of 10 guntas. In pursuance to the
consent award, Smt. Lakshmamma W/o late.
Narasimhaiah has received a sum of Rs.
1,64,00,000/- and Khasim Sab has received a sum
of Rs. 20,00,000/-.
.5. Sri. N. Murthy and others had filed W.P.
No. 21900/2021. In pursuance to the order in W.P.,
the reference has been sent in-respect of 10302 sq.
feet under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act. From
the order in W.P. No. 21900/2021, it is seen that
the Hon'ble High Court has directed the reference
Court before which the compensation amount has
been deposited at the hands of B.D.A. to decide the
claim made by the parties herein as regards their
entitlement to seek payment of compensation. It is
further observed that the parties shall not only be
8
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
entitled for payment of compensation, but are also
entitled for the benefits arising out of any scheme as
contemplated under the L.A. Act and B.D.A. Act. It
is further observed that if the reference Court
decides the case either wholly or partly in-favour of
respondents 6 to 8 (in writ petition), they should
also be given an opportunity to seek enhancement
of compensation. If they seek enhancement of
compensation, then they will not have the benefit of
seeking allotment of sites under the scheme of
B.D.A.
.6. In pursuance to the order, the reference
has been sent to this Court. The notice has been
issued to both the parties.
.7. After receipt of reference, this Court has
registered the case. This Court issued notice to all
the parties. In response to the notice, both parties
9
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
have appeared before this Court through their
counsels.
.8. In L.A.C. No. 95/2017:
In the claim statement claimant No.1 has
stated that he is the absolute owner in possession
and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.10, New
No.10/1 of Bheemanakuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 1 Acre 02
guntas), which is acquired by this claimant under a
registered sale deed dated 03.09.1971 from its
previous owner Sri. Doddaiah. In pursuant to the
sale deed, the Khatha in respect of the said land
has been mutated in his favour.
.9. The claimant submits that during the first
week of September 2016, the claimant No. 2 and
her children started canvassing in the locality that,
the land in question belongs to them and they got
obtained the revenue entries in their favour.
10
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
Immediately after coming to know about the same,
he came to know that the claimant No. 2 and her
children have filed an appeal before the Assistant
Commissioner in R.A. (S) 360/2015-16 to set aside
the mutation entry standing in his name in-respect
of the land in question vide MR No. 26/1996-97
against the claimant by giving wrong address of the
claimant and also suppressing the true and
material facts. The Assistant Commissioner without
following the procedure and without proper notice
to him, passed the order on 28.07.2016 against
him. He has challenged the same before the Court
of Deputy Commissioner, in RP No. 434/2017-18
and the same is pending. In the said Revision,
there is a interim order against the claimant No. 2
and her children. Apart from the above said
proceedings there are 9 other litigations before
various Court with respect of the land in question.
11
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
The claimant No. 2 is not having any right, title and
possession over the said land. They have falsely
created the documents, trying to claim a
compensation to the land belonging to the claimant
No. 1. Hence, he is entitled to the award amount.
.10. The LRs of deceased claimant No. 2
have filed claim statement stating that the land in
Sy.No.10 of Bheemanakuppe, totally measure 4
Acre 0.39 guntas and 0.04 Guntas of Karab, in all 5
acre 0.03 guntas is a Jodidar Village. Out of 4 Acre
0.39 Guntas, and extent of 2-00 Acres has been
ordered to be registered in the name of Sri.
Narasimhaiah S/o Nanjudappa (Husband of the
deceased claimant No.2 Smt. Lakshmamma and
father of the Legal heirs of claimant Nos.2(b) to 2(e)
herein in a case bearing No.48/58-59 and
remaining extent of 2 Acres 3.39 Guntas has been
ordered to be registered in the name of Inamdar
12
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
Margaret Norris represented by his P.A. holder M.V.
Norris by the Additional Special Deputy
Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru in a
case bearing No.3/58-59, dated 07.12.1964 as per
Sec-10 of the Mysore (personal and Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act, 1954.
.11. It is stated that as against the grant (2A-
39G in Sy.No.10) and in favour of Inamdar Margaret
Norris, the said Sri. Narasimhaiah S/o Nanjudappa
has preferred an appeal before the Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal in appeal Nos.2973/67 and
358/71 (IAB). The Hon'ble Tribunal by an order
dated 04.08.1971 has set aside the grant order
made in favour of M. Norris in Case No.3/1958-59
and remitted back the matter to the Special Deputy
Commissioner for Abolition of Inams for fresh
consideration.
13
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
.12. It is stated that the Special Deputy
Commissioner for Abolition of Inams upon
conducting detailed enquiry has allowed the claim
of Narasimmaiah in case bearing Nos.3 & 129/59-
60, dated 29.12.1972, whereby registered/granted
the entire land in Sy.No.10 measuring 5 acre 0-03
Guntas of Bheemanakuppe in the name of
Narasimmaiah under Section-5 of the Mysore
(personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act,
1954, Pursuant to grant order, the Inams
endorsement dated 04.05.1973 was also issued in
the name of Narsimmaiah for the total extent of
land in Sy.No10, measuring 5 Acre 0-03 Guntas,
which attains the finality as there being no
challenge so far by anybody.
.13. It is stated that during the pendency of
claim/appeals of Narasimmaiah before the Mysore
Revenue Appellate Tribunal in appeal Nos.2973/67
14
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
and 358/71 (IAB), the so called Jodidar M.V. Norris
and the alleged purchasers of the land namely, Sri
L.C. Ashok and Sri.Doddaiah have been attempting
to interfere with the peaceful and lawful possession
of the Grantee Narsimmaiah in respect of the land
measuring 2 Acre 0.39 Guntas in Sy.No.10 of
Bheemanakuppe, which prompted him file a suit
bearing OS No.376/1969 against them on the file of
the Principal Second Munsiff, Bengaluru, the said
suit has been decreed in favour of Narasimmaiah
vide Judgment dated 03.08.1971, upon which, no
challenge so far by anybody.
.14. It is stated that out of 4 Acres 0.39
Guntas, one Kashimsai was registered/granted an
extent of 0.10 Guntas under tenancy claim (Form-7
under sec-48A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act) on
29.05.1979 upon which no dispute by the legal
heirs of claimant No.2 herein. The respective
15
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
revenue entries were carried out in the name of
Narsimmaiah S/o Nanjudappa as per mutation
order MR No.4/73-74 for an extent of 4 Acre 0.29
Guntas and MR No.17/79-80 for an extend of 4
Acre 0.29 guntas and MR No.17/79-80 for an extent
of 0.10 Guntas (MR No17/1979-80) in the name of
Kashim Sabi.
.15. It is stated that the Inamdar Margaret
Norris on the guise of canceled grant order made in
case No.3/1958-59 (2A-39G in Sy.No.10), although
it was subjected to Appeals before the Mysore
Appellate Tribunals and setting aside has illegally
created the sale deed dated 27.03.1967, land in
favour of one Mr. R. Doddaiah S/o Ramaiah, who
inturn on the very same day, document bearing
Registration No.6351/1966-67, in the name of one
Sri. L.C. Ashok for the said land (2A-39G).
16
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
.16. It is stated that the alleged legal heirs of
L.C. Ashok by suppressing the further legal aspects
and facts, have illegally challenged the mutation
(MR No.4/73-74) for the land in question standing
in the name of the Sri. Narsimmaiah S/o
Nanjundappa before the Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru in an
appeal bearing RA(S) No.178/2019-20 against the
legal heirs of deceased claimant No.2. The authority
even has allowed the appeal by an order dated
03.06.2020, whereby illegally setting aside the
mutation. As against the said order, the legal heirs
of claimant No.2 herein have moved before the
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District,
Bengaluru in RP No178/2019-20 and the said D.C.
has erroneously dismissed the revision. Against the
said order, the legal heirs of claimant No.2 have filed
writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. By an
17
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
order dated, 11.01.2022 with an observation that
the revenue entries are not the title documents,
therefore, reference court can very well look into
while considering the reference under section-30
and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, who
are lawfully entitled for apportionment of
compensation. It is settled in several catena of
decisions that the revenue entries are not sufficient
enough to declare the title of the parties without pre
existing title in law.
.17. It is stated that the claimant No.1 herein
namely, Sri. Galiswamy is also not having any right,
title and interest in respect of the subjected land.
Since, his claim is based on the sale deed dated
03.09.1971. who alleged to have purchased the land
measuring 1 Acre 0.02 Guntas in Sy.No.10, New
Sy.No.10/1 from Doddaiah, the said sale deed is not
pertaining to the land in question, but it pertains to
18
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
the land in Sy.No.11. However, katha wrongly
recorded in the name of claimant No.1 herein
namely, Sri. Galiswamy pertaining to Sy.No.10/1,
measuring 1 Acre 0-02 Guntas under alleged MR
No.26/1996-97. The claimant No.2 had given a
representation to the Thasildar, Bengaluru South
Taluk to effect khatha of the subjected land in her
name, claiming though Late Narasimmaiah, on
receipt of the same, the Special Thasidar, Bengaluru
South Taluk has issued an endorsement dated
03.11.2015, stating the true facts besides advising
to appeal before the Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru.
Therefore, the claimant No.2 herein namely, Late
Lakshmamma and others have filed an appeal
before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru
South Sub-Division, Bengaluru in RA(S)
No.360/2015-2016, whereby challenged the
19
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
mutation order viz., MR No.26/1996-97. The
authority allowed the appeal by an order dated,
28.07.2016 by setting aside the MR No.26/1996-97.
The order passed in the Appeal by the Assistant
Commissioner has been subjected to revision in RP
No.434/2016-17 by the said Galiswamy the
claimant No.1 filed before the Deputy Commissioner
Bengaluru Urban District and the same is pending
consideration.
.18. It is stated that BDA has notified the land
and award has been passed, the Legal heirs of
claimant. No.2 herein have received the award
amount for the portion of land in Sy.No.10/2,
measuring 3 Acre 0-15 Guntas from the BDA and
thus they are entitled for further benefits arising
there from the notification.
.19. The claimants 3 to 5 have filed claim
statement stating that originally survey No.10 of
20
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
Bheemanakuppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk, Bengaluru, measured 5 acres 03
guntas including 4 guntas of 'Kharab" lands. The
said lands formed a part of Jodi Inamdar lands of
Jodi Bheemanakuppe Village. Consequent to the
abolition of Inams and vesting of lands under the
Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition
Act, 1954, the predecessor-in-title of the claimants,
one Mrs.Margaret Norris, sought grant of occupancy
rights before the Special Deputy Commissioner for
Inams Abolition, and in case No.3/58-59, Mrs.
Margaret Norris (through her power of attorney
Holder Major M.V. Norris) was granted occupancy
rights to the extent of 2 acres 39 guntas in
Sy.No.10( the schedule property), in Beemanakuppe
Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, as
per order dated 07.12.1964 passed by the Special
Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. In
21
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
addition to th schedule land in Survey No.10,
occupancy rights with regard to several other lands
in Bheemanakuppa Village were also granted to
Mrs. Margaret Norris vide the said order, totally
measuring an extent of 51 cares 13 guntas.
.20. It is stated that Mrs.Margaret Norris, sold
the entire extent of lands granted to her measuring
an extent of 51 acres 13 guntas to one Mr. R
Doddaiah son of Ramaiah, under registered Sale
Deed dated 27.03.1967. The revenue entries were
also duly mutated in favour of Mr. R. Doddaiah. It is
stated that Mr. R. Doddaiah, son of Ramaiah, sold
the entire extent of 51 acres 13 guntas which
included the schedule property, to Late Sri.
L.C.Ashok, the husband of claimant No.1 and the
father of the claimant No.2 and 3, vide Registered
Sale Deed dated 27.03.1967. The khatha was also
22
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
duly mutated in favour of Late Sri. L.C. Ashok as
property MR No.43/66-67
.21. It is stated that Late Sri. L.C Ashok was
the absolute owner in possession of the schedule
property ever since the date of purchase by him, ie.,
27.03.1967 up to his demise on 21.05.2011. Upon
his demise, the claimants who are his only legal
heirs. It is stated that Late Shri. L.C. Ashok was
duly paying the taxes for the schedule property, and
during his lifetime, he had not executed any sale of
nor create any encumbrance over the schedule
property.
.22. It is stated that the claimants having been
the absolute owners of the schedule property, they
alone are entitle for the compensation. One Sri.
Narasimhaiah S/o Nanjundappa had made an
application for grant of occupancy rights only with
regard to the remaining extent of 2 acres in the
23
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
same Survey Number 10, Bheemanakuppe Village,
and occupancy rights were granted to him vide
order dated 01.01.1965, only to an extent of 2 acres
in Survey No.10, Bhemanakuppe Village).
.23. It is stated that one Sri. Kasim Sabi S/o
Masthan Sabi had filed an application in Form No.7
under section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961, against the aforesaid Shri.
Narasimhaiah, and vide order dated 29.05.1979 the
Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk was pleased
to register Shri. Kasim Sabi to an extent of 10
guntas in Sy.No.10 f Bheemanakuppe against the 2
acres of land held by Shri Narasimhaiah. Thus,
pursuant to the said order, Shri Narasimhaiah held
2 acres minus 10 guntas granted to Shri Kasim
Sabi = 1 acre 30 guntas only.
.24. It is stated that the RTCs were reflecting
the name of Late Shri L.C. Ashok as the owner in
24
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
possession of the schedule property, Shri
Narasimhaiah fraudulently tampered with the RTCs
in collusion with the revenue officials, behind the
back of Late Sri. L.C. Ashok and his legal heirs,
even though he had no manner of right, title or
interest with regard to the schedule lands. A
fraudulent and bogus MR No.4/73-74 was entered
without any basis for the same an without notice to
Late Shri. L.C. Ashok and his legal heirs.
.25. It is stated that upon coming to know of
the fraud played by the said Shri Narasimhaiah at a
later stage, the claimants preferred R.A
No.178/2019-20 before the Assistant
Commissioner, Bengaluru South allowed the appeal
and setting aside MR No.4/1973-74 and further
directing that the names of the claimants be
restored with regard to the schedule property.
25
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
.26. It is stated that the said Shri
Narasimhaiah's alleged legal heirs sought revision
before the Deputy Commissioner in RP
No.153/2020. The Revision petition was rejected by
the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban
District, vide his order dated 02.11.2021 in RP
No.153/2020, thereby affirming the names of the
claimants herein in the revenue records.
.27. It is stated that the alleged legal heirs of
Late Sri. Narasimhaiah thereupon filed WP
No.21900/2021 before the Hon'ble High court of
Karnataka challenging the orders of the Revenue
authorities in favour of the claimants. Vide order
dated 11.01.2022 in WP No.21900 of 2021 the
Hon'ble High court of Karnataka has disposed of the
Writ petition at threshold, upholding the revenue
entries and not quashing the same, and further
directing the Reference court to decide the claims of
26
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
the parties regarding their entitlement to seek
compensation. In spite of being the lawful owners,
the claimants were kept in the dark throughout
about the acquisition proceedings and their names
were never included in the section 4, 6 and other
notices issued.
.28. Before the revenue authorities, even
though the legal heirs of Narasimhaiah claimed that
Late Sri. Narasimhaiah had preferred an appeal to
the Revenue Appellant Tribunal challenging the
grant of only 2 acres to him, the details and
outcome of the alleged appeal were never disclosed.
These claimants and their predecessor Late Shri
L.C. Ashok were never made parties to any such
alleged appeal.
.29. Late Narasimhaiah had filed OS
No.376/1969 against Late Shri. L.C.Ashok.
Admittedly however, the suit is one only for bare
27
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
permanent injunction and no declaration of title
was sought in the said suit. The exparte decree of
bare injunction would not affect the title of these
claimants, especially since the possession is now
with the State/BDA. In the absence of any right or
title, Shri Narasimhaiah and his legal heirs are dis
entitled to any compensation before the Hon'ble
High court by playing fraud and suppressing the
true facts, it would appear that Late Sri.
Narasimhaiah and his legal heirs have already
withdrawn certain sums towards compensation. The
said payment ought to be recovered as arrears of
land revenue under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984 by the State/BDA since Sri.
Narasimhaiah and his legal heirs cannot unjustly
enrich themselves at the cost of these claimants
who are the true owners. Hence, prayed to award
28
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
compensation for the acquisition of the schedule
lands wholly in favour of the claimants.
In L.A.C. No. 45/2022:
.30. The claim statement filed by claimants 1
to 5 is similar to the claim statement filed by LRs of
claimant No. 2 in-respect of L.A.C. No. 95/2017. It
is further stated that the provisions of L.A. Act, is as
good title suit if it is to be decided, where the
claimants 7 to 9 are entitled for any compensation,
they have to establish their title. Thus the following
emerges:
(a) There is no cause of action to adjudicate
their title.
(b) The provisions of Inam Abolition has
decided the title of Narasimhaiah and therefore
there is no order setting aside the title
including the occupancy rights conferred upon
Narasimhaiah by issuing of registered
occupancy certificate conferring occupancy
rights with compensation. Therefore, from the
date thereof the claim statement of claimants 7
to 9 barred by limitation.
(c) The claimants 7 to 9 do not have any
inherent or successive right to question the
legality or otherwise of the orders of the Inams
29
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
Abolition which has attained its finality. When
those orders have not been questioned there
cannot be adjudication of this Court under the
Special Land Acquisition or benefit in lieu of
compensation.
Hence, prayed to release the sites in-favour of
claimants 1 to 5.
.31. The claimant No. 6 Khasim Sabi has no
claim.
.32. The claimants 7 to 9 have filed claim
statement and their claim statement is similar to
claim statement filed by claimants 3 to 5 in L.A.C.
No. 95/2017 and prayed for payment of
compensation.
.33. To prove their case, in L.A.C. No.
95/2017, claimant No.2(e) B.N. Somashekar is
examined as PW.1, claimant No. 5 Ramanand
Ashok Gowda is examines as PW.2, claimant No. 1
is examined as PW.3. Documents got marked as
Ex.P1 to 88. One P. Dinesh, Tahsildar, Bengaluru
30
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
South Taluka is examined as CW.1. The documents
got marked as Ex.C.1 to 5. In L.A.C. No. 45/2022,
The claimant No. 5 B.N. Somashekar is examined as
PW.1, claimant No. 9 Ramananda Ashok Gowda is
examined as PW.2. The documents got marked as
Ex.P.1 to 65.
.34. Heard the arguments. Written arguments
filed by all the claimants.
.35. The advocate for the claimant No. 1 has
relied upon the decisions reported in:
(1) KCCR 19 (3) 2276 (K.S. Huchaveerappa Vs.
Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub
Division, Bengaluru and others)
The advocate for the claimant No. 2(a) to 2(e)
has relied upon the decisions reported in:
(1) ILR 2020 KAR 1449) (Smt. Jayamma and
others Vs. State of Karnantaka)
31
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
(2) AIR 2007 SC 861 (I.R. Coelho (dead) by LRs
Vs. State of T.N.)
(3) AIR 1971 SC 2324 (M/s. DLF Housing and
Construction Co (P) Ltd Vs. Sarup Singh and others)
(4) 2013(2) Kar. J.J. 121 (Hullappa Vs. State of
Karnataka and others)
(5) ILR 2006 KAR 2226 (Gangamma and
another Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others)
(6) 2011 SCC Online Kar 4070 - (2011)3 KLJ
377 (Smt. Venkatanarasamma Vs. the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban)
(7) 2013 SCC Online Kar 10323; (2013)4 KLJ
327 (N. Sidda Reddy Vs. T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy)
(8) ILR 2007 KAR 3602 (Panduranga Jivajirao
Manglekar Since dead by LRs and others Vs. The
State of Karnataka, represented by its Secretary)
(9) (1974) KLJ 26, Ssh. N.90
32
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
.36. The advocate for the claimants 3 to 5 has
relied upon the decisions reported in:
(1) ILR 1992 Kar 1827 (Sri. Kudla Sringeri
Mahasamsthanam Vs. State of Karnataka)
(2) ILR 2006 Kar 2994 (Smt. Gowramma Vs.
Land Tribunal)
(3) ILR Kar XXIII 1311 (State of Mysore Vs. H.
Subha Rao)
(4) 1966(1) MLJ 65 (T. Srirangachar Vs. State
of Mysore)
(5) ILR 1985 Kar 3872 (Stumpp Schedule and
Somappa (P) Ltd. Vs. Chandrappa)
(6) ILR 1987 Kar 1466(Krishnamurthy Vs.
Hemanna)
The above principles laid down in the said
decisions are taken note.
.37. The following points that would arise for
my consideration are:
33
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
1) Which of the claimants are
entitled to receive the
compensation amount disputed
in L.A.C. No. 95/2017?
2) Which of the claimants are
entitled to receive the
compensation amount disputed
in L.A.C. No. 45/202?
3) What order?
.38. My answers to the above points are:
Point No.1 : As per discussion
Point No.2 : As per discussion
Point No.3: As per final order, for the
following:
REASONS
.39. POINTS 1 and 2: Both points are taken
together as they involve common discussion. The parties
are referred to as appearing in L.A.C. No. 95/2017.
.40. L.A.C. No. 95/2017 pertains to Sy.No. 10/1
measuring 1 acre 25 guntas and L.A.C. No. 45/2022
pertains to Sy.No. 10/2 measuring 3 acres 19 guntas.
All the claimants advocates have submitted that there is
no phode done in-respect of Sy.No. 10. So by the
34
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
consent of claimants' advocates L.A.C. No. 95/2017 and
L.A.C. No. 45/2022 are clubbed.
.41. It is undisputed fact that originally Sy.No. 10 of
Bheemanakuppe village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluka was measuring 5 acres 3 guntas including 4
guntas of kharab land. The said land formed a part of
Jodi Inam lands of Jodi Bheemanakuppe village, Kengeri
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka. Mrs. Margaret M.V.
Norris was Inamdar in-respect of said survey No. 10 of
Bheemanakuppe village.
.42. One Khasim Sabi S/o Mastan Sabi had filed
an application in Form No. 7 under Section 48A of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act against Narasimhaiah and
vide order dated 29.05.1979. The Land Tribunal had
registered Khasim Sabi to an extent of 10 guntas in
Sy.No. 10 of Bheemanakuppe village against 2 acres of
land held by Narasimhaiah as per Ex.P.15. In pursuant
to the acquisition, Khasim Sabi has already received the
35
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
compensation to an extent of 10 guntas. All the
claimants before this Court have no grievances against
the said Khasim sabi.
.43. In pursuant to the Abolition of Inams the
predecessor in title of the claimants 3 to 5 namely
Margaret M.V. Norris had sought grant of occupancy
rights before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner in case No.
3/58-59 through her Power of attorney holder M.V.
Norries. She was granted occupancy rights to an extent
of 2 acres 39 guntas in Sy.No. 10 of Bheemanakuppe
village as per the order dated 07.12.1964 by the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. In addition to
the land in Sy.No.10, occupancy rights with regard to
several other lands totally measuring to an extent of 51
acres 13 guntas. Ex.P.25 is the said order of the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner.
.44. Ex.P.26 and 27 discloses that name of
Margaret has been entered in the register No. VI showing
36
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
lands and buildings in the name of Inamdars and register
No. VIII showing details of the assessment payable to the
Government.
.45. Mrs. Margaret had sold entire extent of land
granted to her measuring to an extent of 51 acres 13
guntas in Sy.No. 10 to one R. Doddaiah S/o Ramaiah
under a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1967 as per
Ex.P.28. Ex.P.30 discloses the revenue entries were
mutated in the name of R. Doddaiah as per MR No.
42/66-67. On the same day R. Doddaiah sold entire
extent of 51 acres 13 guntas to late. L.C. Ashok under a
registered sale deed dated 27.03.1967 as per Ex.P.29.
Consequent to the sale, the pahanies were also duly
mutated in-favour of late. L.C. Ashok in-respect of MR
No.43/66-67 as per Ex.P.30. It is stated that L.C. Ashok
was the absolute owner in possession of the property in
question since the date of purchase till his demise on
21.05.2011 and thereafter, the claimants 3 to 5 are the
37
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
legal heirs and they were in possession of the property
until the said property came to be acquired by B.D.A. for
formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout.
.46. The LR of claimant No. 2 B.N. Somashekar
has been examined as PW.1 for himself as well as on
behalf of other LRs and has stated that his father
Narasimhaiah S/o Nanjudappa at the first instance had
applied for registration of tenant under Section 5 of the
Inams Abolition Act. In the written arguments it is stated
that he had filed 2 applications at different point of time
for registration of permanent tenant in-respect of 2 acres
of land in Sy.No. 10, which has been numbered as case
No. 48/1959-60. Subsequently another application came
to be filed in-respect of remaining extent measuring 2
acres 39 guntas in Sy.No. 10 and the same came to be
numbered as 128/1959-60.
.47. The Inamdar of Bheemanakuppe village
namely Margaret M.V. Norris through her P.A. holder
38
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
M.V. Norris has filed for registration of occupancy under
Section 9 of the Act in-respect of several lands of
Bheemanakuppe village including the land in Sy.No. 10
measuring 2 acres 39 guntas and her application came to
be numbered as case No. 3/1958-59. The competent
authority had registered 2 acres 39 guntas in the name
of Margaret in case No. 3/1958-69 as per order dated
07.12.1964 under Section 10 of the Inams Abolition Act.
To an extent of 2 acres has been ordered to be registered
in the name of Narasimhaiah S/o Nanjundappa as per
order dated 01.01.1965 under Section 5 of the Act. It is
stated that name of Narasimhaiah in-respect of
remaining extent of 2 acres 39 guntas made in case No.
128/1959-60 was rejected. Because Competent Authority
had erroneously considered the application filed by
Margaret in case No. 3/58-59, Narasimhaiah has not
been made as party. Ex.P.1 is the grant order made in
the name of Narasimhaiah in case No. 48 and 128. In
39
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
the document it is mentioned as Sy.No. 4 to an extent of
2 acres 5 guntas and Sy.No. 10 to an extent of 2 acres.
Ex.P.2 is the report of the Spl. Tahsildar for Inams
Abolition Act. The said report discloses that the
petitioner states that he is in possession and enjoyment
of Sy.No.10 measuring 2 acres on payment of fixed rent
to the Inamdar. The Inamdar has no objection for
registration of this land in the name of petitioner. The
Spl. Tahsildar has stated that the petitioner may
therefore be regarded as permanent tenant in-respect of
Sy.No. 10 measuring 2 acres under Section 5 of the Act
with premium.
.48. PW.1 has stated that against the grant made
in-favour of Inamdar Margaret, his father Narasimhaiah
S/o Nanjundappa had preferred an appeal before the
Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.
2973/1967 and 358/1971 challenging rejection of his
claim in-respect of 2 acres 39 guntas in Sy.No. 10. It is
40
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
stated that after hearing the matter the Land Tribunal by
order dated 04.08.1971 had set aside the grant order in-
favour of Margaret in case No. 3/58-59 and remitted
back the matter before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for
Abolition of Inams for afresh consideration and to
dispose in accordance with law. Ex.P.5 is the order of the
Appellant Tribunal. It is mentioned in the order that the
appeals are against the order of the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner for Inams in case No. 48 and 128 /1959-
60 and in case No. 3/58-59. The prayer sought in the
appeal is to set aside the impugned orders and be
registered as occupant in-respect of entire extent of 5
acres of land in Sy.No. 10 of Bheemanakuppe village.
In para No. 2 of the said order, it is seen that:
"Since in these two appeals one being against
the grant and another against the rejection
and the property and the parties are also being
common, these two appeals are clubbed
together, heard together and common
judgment has been passed". It has been
observed at para No. 4 that " appellant and
deceased respondent No. 1 in both these
41
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
appeals had preferred an application for
occupancy rights claiming occupancy right in
Jodi Bheemanakuppe village. Their
application was given separate number and
the learned Spl. Deputy Commissioner in case
No. 3/58-59 passed on 07.12.1964 registering
2 acres 39 guntas of land in Sy.No. 10 among
other lands in the name of petitioner Jodidar.
The appellant was not a party to the said
proceedings. Therefore the learned Spl.
Deputy Commissioner in case No. 48 and
128/1959-60 on his file passed a order
registering only 2 acres out of 5 acres of land
in Sy.No. 10 in the name of appellant......."
In para No. 6 it has been held that:
"on going through the connected case
records of enquiry, the learned Spl. Deputy
Commissioner erred in not clubbing 2 claim
petitions together and not given an
opportunity to put forward their case and
confront each other on the question of
possession of land in question. It has been
further contended that he has been in
uninterpreted possession of the land in
question for the last 30-35 years and even the
Jodidars ie.., deceased respondent No. 1 had
no objections for the entire extent being
registered in his name, has not at all been
considered by the learned Spl. Deputy
Commissioner while disposing of the claim
petition pending before him" .
42
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
The Tribunal had set aside the orders passed in
both cases and remitted back to the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner for Inams Abolition for afresh enquiry.
.49. It is stated that after remand, the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner for Inams Abolition, after holding detailed
enquiry had allowed the claim of his father Narasimhaiah
in case No. 3 and 129/59-60 and registered the entire
land in Sy.No. 10 measuring 5 acres 3 guntas of
Bheemanakuppe village in the name of his father
Narasimhaiah under Section 5 of the Mysore Inams
Abolition Act 1954.
.50. Ex.P.7 is the order of the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner dated 29.12.1972. In the said order, the
petitioner is referred to as Narasimhaiah and respondent
is referred to as M.Norris. The said order discloses that
as per direction of the Mysore Revenue Appellate
Tribunal, the cases have been taken on record. The
applicant had appeared before the Court and deposition
43
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
has been recorded. In his evidence he has stated that he
has been in possession and enjoyment of the land as per
the boundaries mentioned in his claim petition. He has
examined two witnesses namely Muniyappa and
Nanjundappa and they have also deposed that
Narasimhaiah has been cultivating the land from the
past 40 years on 'guttige' and Jodidar never cultivated
the land. The Spl. Deputy Commissioner has ordered
to register the entire extent of 5 acres 3 guntas less
kharab in the name of respondent under Section 5 of
the Act with premium.
.51. The respondent referred to in this case is Smt.
Margaret. Section 5 of the Act deals with permanent
tenants to be registered as occupants on certain
conditions. It provides that subject to the provisions of
Sub-section (2), every permanent tenant of the Inamdar
shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be
entitled to be registered as an occupant in-respect of all
44
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
lands of which he was permanent tenant immediately
before the date of vesting.
.52. Sub-section (2) states that in addition to the
annual land revenue payable in-respect of the land, a
permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an
occupant of any land under Sub-section (1), shall be
liable to pay to the Government, as premium for
acquisition of ownership of that land, an amount equal to
20 times such land revenue. .....
.53. Ex.P.7 order is not clear because in the
order it is mentioned as respondent who is Inamdar.
It is ordered to register under Section 5 of the Act.
Section 5 deals with registration of permanent
tenants as occupant on payment of premium.
.54. The claimants 3 to 5 have contended that the
order dated 29.12.1972 is clearly in-favour of Mrs.
Margaret Norris since the word " respondent" has been
45
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
clearly and unequivocally been used. The said order has
attained finality.
.55. The legal heirs of Narasimhaiah after noticing
the clerical / typographical error in the post remand
order has filed an application under Section 152 of CPC
for correction before the Competent Authority. The said
application is pending consideration. In support of their
contention, they have relied upon the decision reported
in 2001(4) SCC 181 (Jayalakshmi Coelho Vs. Oswald
Joseph Coelho), wherein it is held that:
" Mistake are accidental slip by Court-
power to rectify, held, is an inherent power
and would be available to all courts and
authorities regardless of whether or not
Section 151 CPC is applicable to their
proceedings."
.56. It is contended that principle behind the
provision is that no party should suffer due to bonafide
mistake. Whatever is intended by the Court while
passing the order or decree must be properly reflected
therein otherwise it would only be destructive of the
46
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
principle of advancing the cause of justice. It is
contended that the Court should not bind itself by
shackles of technicalities as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (2010) 12 SCC 585 (Thilak Rj Vs.
Bailkunthi Devi (dead) by Lrs. It is stated that the said
typographical error in the post remand order would not
create any kind of benefit to the Inamdar or the
purchasers from him and as such, the clerical mistake
found in the post remand order is not appealable, per
contra, the said mistakes can be corrected by the very
authority who passes the order at any length of time. It
is contended that the claimants 3 to 5 are the permanent
tenants had to appear before the appellate authority
under Section 28(1) of the Act re redundant and not
available in the case on hand, as the permanent tenant
Narasimhaiah is not an aggrieved party against the post
remand order. Since he was issued an revised
endorsement (Ex.P.11) and recording revenue records as
47
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
per mutation order for the entire land in Sy.No. 10
measuring 5 acres 3 guntas of Bheemanakuppe village.
.57. On the other hand, claimants 3 to 5 have
contended that the order of the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner had attained finality. Even though LRs of
Narasimhaiah had filed an application before the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner to review the said order as per
Ex.P.85. It is to be noted that till date the order dated
29.12.1972 has not been interfered by any competent
authority and even delay in filing the application has also
not been condoned.
.58. It is stated that the word " respondent " cannot
be treated as typographical error and it is impermissible
to re-read the crucial, operative portion of a judicial
order. That the Hon'ble High Court under Section 31(1)
of the Inams Abolition Act 1954 would be competent to
entertain an appeal, but admittedly no such appeal has
been filed till today. It is further contended that the
48
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
application (Ex.P.85) has been suppressed by LRs of
claimant No. 2 throughout including while making this
claim before this Court.
.59. LRs of claimant No. 2 has contended that
registration of occupancy rights if at all in-favour of
Inamdar as contended by the claimants 3 to 5, then as
per Section 9 of the Act, which deals with the grant of
occupancy rights in-favour of Inamdar should have been
mentioned, but not under Section 5 of the Act, which is
meant for permanent tenant. It is argued that on this
account it can be safely held that the post remand orer is
in-favour of permanent tenant Narasimhaiah under
Section 5 of the Act, which provisions deals in relating to
registration of occupancy rights pertaining to permanent
tenant.
.60. Though in Ex.P.7 entire extent of 5 acres 3
guntas of land is ordered to be registered in the name of
respondent (Mrs. Margaret Norris). Ex.P.11 endorsement
49
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
dated 04.05.1973 has been issued by the Gazette
Assistant to the Spl. District Commissioner for Abolition
of Inams registering Narasimhaiah as Hiduvalidar and
khathedar in-respect of Sy.No. 10 measuring 5 acres 3
guntas. Ex.P.34 is the mutation in MR 4/73-74 made in
the name of Narasimhaiah in pursuance to the
endorsement. The legal heirs of claimant No. 2 have
contended that record of rights have been recorded in the
name of Narasimhaiah as per Section 10(a) of Inams
Abolition Act.
.61. Ex.P.39 is the order of the Assistant
Commissioner in R.A.(S) 178/2019-20. The above appeal
has been filed by claimants 3 to 5 under Section 136(2) of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to set aside MR 4/73-
74 and to delete name of Narasimhaiah and to mutate
the name of appellant to an extent of 2 acres 39 guntas.
The respondents 1 to 6 in the said case are the LRs of
Narasimhaiah. The appeal has been allowed. The
50
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
Tahsildar has been directed to mutate the names of
applicants in-respect of land bearing Sy.No. 10/2 to an
extent of 2 acres 39 guntas and in the names of
respondents 1 to 6 to an extent of 6 guntas in Sy.No.
10/2 of Bheemanakuppe village.
.62. Being aggrieved by the above said order, the
LRs of Narasimhaiah preferred Revision Petition No.
153/2020. The Review petition is also dismissed. From
Ex.P.39 and 41, the order of the Assistant Commissioner
and Deputy Commissioner respectively reveals that
Narasimhaiah has never set up the case and entire 5
acres 39 guntas was ordered in his favour vide order
dated 04.08.1971 of the Spl. Inams D.C. Only in Writ
proceedings in the year 2021-22 for the first time LRs of
Narasimhaiah had revealed the order dated 04.08.1971.
It is argued by the advocate for claimants 3 to 5 that LRs
of Narasimhaiah knew that the final order was in favour
of Mrs. Margaret Norris.
51
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
.63. LRs of claimant No. 2 has contended that post
remand order passed by the competent authority and
also the incidental ad-ministerial act of issuing revised
endorsement and record of rights issued as per mutation
order MR :4/1973-74 (Ex.P.14) in-respect of entire land
in Sy.No. 10 is in-favour of Narasimhaiah in pursuance
to the post remand order in case No. 3 and 128/1959-60
as per Ex.P.7 would attain the finality which cannot be
set aside by the revenue authorities under the provisions
of Section 136 of the KLR Act, 1964either under Appeal
or under Revision proceedings. Therefore, the
cancellation of mutation entry effected on the revised
endorsement followed by the Assistant Commissioner
and Deputy Commissioner under Section 136 of the KLR
Act is erroneous and outside the domain and jurisdiction
of the competent authority.
.64. One P. Dinesh, Tahsildar has been examined
as CW.1. In his evidence, he has stated that occupancy
52
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
rights has been given to Narasimhaiah. It is elicited that
Spl. Inam D.C. will pass the order with regard to
occupancy rights. It is further elicited from CW.1 that
after remand, 2 endorsement have been issued in the
name of Narasimhaiah; that no endorsement has been
issued in the names of Norris and Doddaiah; that there
is no mutation made in the names of Norris and
Doddaiah in the mutation register in-respect of land.
CW-1 has admitted that Spl. D.C. has passed an order in
the name of Norris and by mistake endorsement has
been given in the name of Narasimhaiah. It is elicited
that if there is mistake revised endorsement will be
issued; that at the time of grant, D.C. will not be grant
kharab land and in the endorsement kharab land will not
be included. It is elicited from CW.1 Tahsildar that there
is nothing in original record to show payment of
premium.
53
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
.65. PW.1 during cross-examination has stated
that he will produce the proof of payment of premium but
he has failed to do so; he has not revealed the factum of
remand and post remand order before the Assistant
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
.66. The advocate for claimants 3 to 5 has argued
that the alleged endorsement Ex.P.11, 50 and 51 and C1
are not of any value since the rival claimants are not able
to show under which provision of 1954 Act they were
required to be issued. So, they do not have any legal
sanctity. It is stated that endorsement for 3 acres 3
guntas is meaningless and 3 endorsements altogether.
There is no legal basis for them. The kharab land can
not be included. In view of the lack of legal sanctity,
serious contradictions, anomalies and mismatches in the
alleged endorsements, no importance can be placed upon
them. No proceedings have taken place under Section
10A of the 1954 Act and the bogus revenue entry MR
54
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
4/73-74 was passed fraudulently based on bogus
endorsement. It is argued by the advocate for the
claimants 3 to 5 that as Ex.P.7 (grant order) in their
favour, there was no need for them to challenge the said
order nor the bogus endorsements. Ex.P.7 grant order is
in-favour of predecessor in title of these claimants Mrs.
Margaret Norris, the same cannot be interfered which
would be contrary to Section 31(3) of the Inams Abolition
Act. In support of the said contention, they have relied
upon:
(1) ILR 1985 Kar 3872 (Stumpp Schedule and
Somappa (P) Ltd Vs. Chandrappa). Wherein it has been
held that:
"22. Re: Point No. (iii): The question
herein is, whether the suit is
maintainable and if so, whether title to
schedule 'A' property could be declared
in-favour of the plaintiff? The contention
as to the maintainability of the suit is
rested on the provisions of the Inams
Abolition Act. Counsel for the appellant
urged that whatever be the real extent of
land in possession of the parties prior to
55
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
the coming into force of the Inams
Abolition Act, it has no relevance after the
inams were abolished and the lands
vested in the State Government. The
Special Deputy Commissioner, who is a
statutory authority constituted under the
Inams Abolition Act granted occupancy
rights in-respect of the specified lands to
different parties and his order would be
final and binding on all parties and
courts. In view of the provisions of
Sections 28 and 31(3) of the Inams
Abolition Act, the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to go behind such orders"
24. To sum up: After the inams were
abolished and the lands vested in the
State Government, the only right
preserved to the parties is to apply for
registration of occupancy rights either as
kadim tenant, permanent tenant or other
tenants recognized under the law. When
such applications are made, the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner who is the
statutory authority constituted under the
Inams Abolition Act, is required to make
an enquiry and grant relief. His order is
appealable under Section 28 to the
Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal
and the decision of the Tribunal becomes
final. Section 31(3) states that no order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner or
Tribunal shall be liable to be cancelled or
modified except by the High Court under
Section 31. The jurisdcition of the High
Court under Section 31 is, however,
56
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
limited and confined only to orders
determining compensation except those
referred to in Section 28."
(2) ILR 1987 Kar 1466 ( Krishnamurthy Vs.
Hemmanna). Wherein it has been held that:
"As regards the second contention, the
consistent view of this Court is that the
adjudication by the authorities under the
Act is exclusive and Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain a suit for
declaration of title or possession in-
respect of lands vested in the State
Government."
A Full Bench of this Court in T. Srirangachar and
another Vs. State of Mysore over-ruling the earlier
decision in Raje Urs Vs. State of Mysore has held thus"
"The decision of the Deputy
Commissioner under Section 10 of the
Mysore (personal and Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act, 1954 that certain
lands should be registered under Sections
4, 5, 6 or 9 of the Act is final (subject to
the decision in appeal, if any) if such
decision has been rendered in conformity
with the provisions of the Act and the
Rules made thereunder"
57
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
Finally, in Manikyam Vs. Thimmaiah Single Judge
of this Court relying on the earlier decisions, held that:
"Civil Court ceased to have
jurisdiction to decide the question of title,
when once the land vested in the
Government under the Inams Abolition
Act. All such questions have to be
decided only by the Special forum created
under the Act".
(3) 1995 SCC Online Kar 218: (1995) 5 LJ 459:
1996 AIHC 404 (Anjanappa and others Vs. Byrappa
(Since deceased) by Lrs), wherein it has been held that:
"That following the principle of law as
emerging from above quoted observation
it emerges that as regards the claims
under Sections 4, 5, 6 or 9-A of the Inams
Abolition Act, a special forum has been
provided under the Act and it has been
given the power to decide the claims for
registration of tenants under Section 10.
The decision of the Special Deputy
Commissioner under Section 10 has been
subjected to right of appeal. A appellate
order has been made final. It has not
been kept open for exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 31.
Section 30, sub-section (3) declared that
such orders passed by the Deputy
Commissioner cannot be cancelled or
58
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
cannot be questioned in a Court of law.
So, there is by necessary implication bar
against challenge to the finality of the
order by way of Civil Court. The judicial
review may open under Article 226 or 227
but finality of that order cannot be
challenged in a collateral proceedings
such as the present suit.
In this view of the matter, in my opinion
it was not open to the Civil Court to give a
decision contrary that of Special Deputy
Commissioner."
(4) In CRP No.377 of 2015 (LC Ashok Vs. Seenappa)
Wherein it has been held that:
"17.1 In answer to point No. 2 above I
have held that under Section 31(3) of the
Act it is only the High Court which could
modify or rectify the details of the
property granted under the Act, this by
necessary implication would lead to an
extent of irresistible and irrefutable
conclusion that other than the High
Court no other Court could do so."
.67. From the above discussion, it is clear that
Ex.P.7 order is not clear and this Court cannot
express its view in whose favour grant is made. It is
for the parties to get the order rectified. So on the
59
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
basis of Ex.P.7, this Court cannot hold that
Narasimhaiah got occupancy right or Mrs. Margaret
Norris got occupancy right. When Ex.P.7 grant order
is not clear, Ex.P.11, 50, 51, C-1 being the
Ministerial act of the Assistant to the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner for Abolition of Inams based on Ex.P.7
cannot be relied.
.68. The counsel for the claimants 3 to 5 has
contended that Narasimhaiah has made an application
only for 2 acres in-respect of Sy.No.10 of
Bheemanakuppe village and in the said application, the
boundaries have not been mentioned. Ex.P.35 is an
application filed by Narasimhaiah which discloses that he
filed an application for 2 acres in Sy.No. 10. Ex.P.36 is
the report and in the evidence he has stated that only
with regard to 2 acres and had not sought for entire 5
acres 3 guntas. Ex.C.1 shows that the application was
only in-respect of 2 acres. PW.1 in his evidence has
60
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
stated that his father made another application for the
larger extent and that he would produce it. Such
application subsequently has not been produced. He
obtained grant order in his favour without objection from
the Inamdar in-respect of 2 acres as per Ex.P.1. In
L.A.C. No. 45/2022, PW.1 has categorically admits in
chief examintion that his father made an application only
for 2 acres in Sy.No. 10.
.69. As per Section 10(3) of the Mysore (P and M)
Inams Abolition Act 1954, the application has to be made
within the statutory prescribed time.
.70. The advocate for claimants 3 to 5 submits that
in Ex.P.1 the grant order the two numbers were given to
Narasimhaiah's application only because separate
application needed to be filed for each item of land i.e.,
survey No. 4 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas and Sy.No. 10
measuring 2 acres claimed has been made. Hence, it is
argued that the application was numbered as "case No.
61
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
48 and 128". Rule 7 of the Inams Rules required
separate applications for separate claims. Ex.P.2 reflects
the same. It is contended that as per Ex.P.5 it is clear
that Narasimhaiah filed two appeals, one Appeal No.
2973/67 against his grant order dated 01.01.1965 and
another Appeal No. 358/71(IAB) against the grant of 2
acres 39 guntas to Mrs. Margaret Norris vide order dated
07.12.1964 in case No. 3/58-59. So, entire 5 acres 3
guntas was in question in the MRAT even though he had
only sought for 2 acres. It is contended that LRs of
claimant No. 2 have sought to ingeniously novate his
case by making out a new false case that he had
mentioned the boundaries since the land was not
surveyed. It is contended that in the application Ex.P.12
and in his deposition Ex.P.13 in L.A.C. No. 45/2022,
there is no mention with regard to the boundaries; that
Ex.P.2 report shows that he only sought 2 acres and that
no objection of Inamdar was for the 2 acres only. It is
62
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
argued that Narasimhaiah never applied for 5 acres 3
guntas as per the statutory requirements under Section
10 of the Inams Abolition Act; that taking advantage of
the death of the Inamdar Mrs. Margaret Norris and being
incensed by the sale of the neighbouring extent of land to
Doddaiah and L.C. Ashok, he pursued an unjust
litigation.
.71. It is contended by the claimants 3 to 5 that in
Ex.P.63, post remand order, only "case No. 3 and
129/59-60" is mentioned; that if really second
application had been made and ignored, why did
Narasimhaiah not make such a plea in Appeal Memo and
before the MRAT; that in Ex.P.66 Narasimhaiah raises
the contradictory plea that in the order passed after
remand, lands in Sy.No. 10 and Sy.No. 65 of
Bheemanakuppe village were both involved and he had
made application for both these lands together; that this
clearly shows the falsity of the case.
63
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
.72. The above contentions of claimants 3 to 5
with regard to the extent applied by Narasimhaiah
has to be agitated before proper forum and this
Court cannot appreciate the said contention as it is
beyond the scope of this Court. Once the order
passed by the competent authority have attained
finality, the same cannot be allowed to be re-agitated
or reopened as the Inams Abolition Act is a self
contained code by itself.
.73. It has been vehemently argued by the
advocate for the claimants 3 to 5 that in the proceedings
before MRAT in Appeals and before the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner for Abolition of Inams Act, after remand,
the purchaser L.C. Ashok or his legal heirs were not
made as parties, therefore the said orders passed by the
MRAT and the competent authority after remand are not
legal orders and does not binds the claimants 3 to 5. The
LRs of claimant No. 2 advocate has contended that the
64
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
land in question is a tenanted land and had vested in the
State by virtue of the Act. The only controversy or
dispute to be resolved by the authorities is under Section
10 of the Act is not warranted under the law.
.74. In support of the said contention, they have
relied upon the decision reported in:
(1) 2006(4) KCCR 2288 (P. Ramaiah Setty (deceased)
by LRs and others Vs. R. Nanjundaiah (deceased) by LRs
and others), wherein it is held that:
"the purchasers of the land in question
did not get any right, title and interest
over the property in question by virtue of
the sale deed, they could not have been
impleaded in the proceedings either
before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner or
before the MRAT."
.75. In this case, the Spl. Deputy Commissioner
granted occupancy right on 24.07.1967 where as the
auction sale and subsequent sale had taken place much
prior to the grant. In the present case, the Spl. Deputy
Commissioner had granted occupancy right to Inamdar
65
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
on 08.12.1964 and the sale was made by Inamdar on
27.03.1967. So, the above decision is not applicable to
the case on hand."
.76. The advocate for the claimants 3 to 5 has
contended that the claimants being purchasers and title
holders were bound to be impleaded before the MRAT
and the Spl. Deputy Commissioner but were deliberately
left out by Narasimhaiah. The claimants stepped into the
shoes of the Inamdar and were bound to be made parties.
Rule 7 of the Inams Abolition rules, 1956, mandates that
the Inamdar shall be made a party. No orders could have
been passed behind their backs by the MRAT or the Spl.
Deputy Commissioner. The LRs of claimant No. 2 have
contended that father of claimants 3 to 5 L.C. Ashok had
knowledge about pendency of the Appeals filed by
Narasimhaiah against rejection of his claim in-respect of
2 acres 39 guntas in Sy.No. 10 before MRAT which is
clear from the judgment in O.S.No. 376/1969, in-spite of
66
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
which, he has not opted or chosen to appear or implead
in the Appeal proceedings or in the proceedings before
the competent authority after remand. The advocate for
the claimants 3 to 5 has contended that it is the plaintiff
as dominus litus, to ensure that necessary parties are
impleaded as laid down in Kanakarathnammal case. It is
stated that one Vidhyaraj was shown as the advocate for
Margaret Norris in the MRAT and Special Deputy
Commissioner Court and that another Vidyaraj's name is
shown as advocate for late. Sri. L.C. Ashok in the
separate suit O.S.No.376/1969, does not have any legal
bearing. The party must be impleaded, not the lawyer
concerned. The LRs of Narasimhaiah had given up the
case against Margaret Norris in the suit O.S.No.
376/1969 on the ground that she has sold away her
rights and pursued bare injunction suit only against L.C.
Ashok. The sale of granted land by Inamdar was made to
Doddaiah on 27.03.1967. Doddaiah in turn sold the
67
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
property to L.C. Ashok on 27.03.1967. From Ex.P.5 it is
seen that appeal has been preferred by Narasimhaiah on
15.09.1967. The Inamdar had sold the property prior to
the appeal and has no interest in the property. The grant
in-favour of Inamdar was passed on 08.12.1964 and in-
favour of Narasimhaiah on 01.01.1965. After expiry of
appeal period Narasimhaiah had filed appeal. As sale of
granted land had already taken place. The purchasers
were necessary parties before MRAT and after remand
before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of
Inams. Having not made, the purchaser L.C. Ashok
as party, the order of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner
granting occupancy rights as per Ex.P.7 would not
bind L.C. Ashok and consequently his legal heirs.
.77. The claimant No. 1 Galiswamy has been examined
as PW.3. He has stated that he is the absolute owner in
possession of old Sy.No. 10, new Sy.No. 10/1 measuring 1
acre 2 guntas. He purchased the land under a registered sale
deed dated 03.09.1971 from his vendor Doddaiah. Ex.P.71 is
68
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
the said sale deed. He has stated that khatha in-respect of
land has been mutated in his favour in MR No.26/1996-97
and his name has been entered in the RTC Extract as
khathedar and anubhavadar. Ex.P.72 is the mutation, which
is standing in his name. Ex.P.73 is the RTC Extract for the
year 1997-98 to 1999-2000, wherein, name of Galiswamy has
been mentioned at Col. No.9 and 12(2) and the extent shown
to be as 1 acre 2 guntas and his name has been entered in
pursuance to MR No.26/1996-97. ExP.74 and 75 are the
RTC Extracts for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 and name of
Galiswamy has been entered in Col. No.9 and 12(2) and at
Col. NO.11 it is mentioned that the land has been acquired
for Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout. Ex.P. 76 is the survey
records in-respect of Sy.No. 10.
.78. PW.3 has stated that during the first week of
September 2016 the claimant No. 2 and her children were
canvassing in the locality that the land in question belong to
them and they have obtained the revenue entries in their
favour. Immediately after knowing about the same, he
verified the same in the office of the Tahsildar and Assistant
69
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
Commissioner and after verification he came to know that the
claimant No. 2 and her children have filed a false appeals
before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No. (S) 360/2015-
16 to set aside the mutation entry standing in his name in-
respect of the land in question in MR No. 26/1996-97 against
him by giving wrong address of his residence. It is stated that
the Assistant Commissioner without following the procedure
and without notice to him had passed an order dated
28.08.2016 as per Ex.P.77.
.79. In support of his decision he has relied upon
2019(3) KCCR 2276 wherein it is held that:
"Quasi judicial authority is not
empowered to reopen proceedings
or review order as it becomes
functors officio on passing of order".
.80. Being aggrieved by the said order, he has
challenged the same before the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.
No.2017-18 and the same is pending. In the revision
petition, there is interim order against the claimant No. 2 and
her children not to withdraw the compensation amount from
the respondent authority in-respect of land in question. It is
70
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
stated that there is other litigations before other Court
between claimant No. 2 and her daughters regarding the title
to the land bearing Sy.No. 10 of Bheemanakuppe village.
.81. PW.3 has stated that the respondent had passed
an order of consent award in his favour on 10.04.2012. Since
the other claimants have filed objections to his claim, the
reference has been sent to this Court. Ex.P.78 is the consent
award notice in-respect of 1 acre 25 guntas.
.82. During cross-examination PW.3 admits that he has
no objections to the claim made by the claimants 3 to 5. He
pleads ignorance with regard to Ex.P.29 sale deed dated
27.03.1967 in-favour of Ashok and Ex.P.30 MR entry in
pursuance to the said sale deed. PW.3 pleads ignorance as to
how Doddaiah got the land and extent of land owned by
Doddaiah. When it is suggested that Ashok had questioned
MR No.26/1996-97 and the same has been cancelled. The
witness has stated that it is cancelled only in-respect of 2
acres 39 guntas and that there has been no order in-respect
of 1 acre 2 guntas. Ex.P.83 is the order copy in-respect of MR
No.26/96-97. On perusal of Ex.P.83 it is seen that it is order
71
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
passed in R.A. No. 177/2019-20 by the Assistant
Commissioner. The claimants 3 to 5 have sought to set aside
the MR No.26/1996-97 and to delete the name of respondent
No. 1 and to mutate the name of appellants in-respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 10 measuring to an extent of 2 acres 39
guntas. The appeal has been allowed and MR No.26/1996-97
standing in the name of Galiswamy has been set aside. It is
further ordered to mutate the name of appellants in-respect of
land bearing Sy.No. 10 and new Sy.No. 10/2 measuring to an
extent of 2 acres 39 guntas in terms of the order of this
authority in R.A.(S) 178/2019-20. So, as per Ex.P.83 the MR
entry standing in the name of claimant No. 1 Galiswamy has
Bengaluru set aside. PW.3 has denied the suggestion that as
per Ex.P.71, the boundaries are situated in Sy.No. 11.
Ex.P.71 is the sale deed of Galiswamy. In the sale deed, it
has been mentioned as Sy.No. 10, new Sy.No. 11 measuring 1
acre 2 guntas. When it is suggested to PW.3 that his property
is situated in Sy.No. 11. He has stated that his property is
situated in Sy.No. 10 and there is no rectification deed in-
respect of it. When it is suggested that the mutation has
72
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
been made as per Ex.P.72 in-respect of new Sy.No. 11 and
not in-respect of Sy.No. 10. He has stated that mutation has
been made in Sy.No. 10/1 and 10/2. It is suggested that
prior to 1996 the records were standing in the name of
Ashok, PW.3 pleads ignorance. PW.3 has stated that he has
obtained Ex.P.76 from the Revenue Department. When it is
suggested that chakkubandi and details were not correct, he
pleads ignorance. He admits that Ex.P.77 pertains to the
dispute between him and Narasimhaiah and in the said case
claimants 3 to 5 are not parties. He pleads ignorance, when
it is suggested that Ex.P.71 contains recitals as to how
Doddaiah got the property. He admits that he did not know
how Doddaiah got the property. He pleads ignorance about
dispute between Inamdar and tenants. He does not know as
to when Sy.No. 10/1 and 10/2 has been phoded. He has
stated that as per RTC Extract in-respect of Sy.No. 10/1 his
name shows to an extent of 1 acre 25 guntas. Subsequent to
the purchase, he has not got his land phoded. He admits
that as per Ex.P.73 names of Narasimhaiah S/o Nanjundappa
have been entered in pursuance to MR No. 4/73-74. He
73
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
admits that LRs of Narasimhaiah had questioned his MR and
his MR has been cancelled. When it is suggested that his MR
has been cancelled as his survey number referred to 11 and
not 10. He has stated that LRs of claimant No. 2 have
obtained the order in collusion with the Revenue Authorities.
PW.3 has admitted the proceedings in LRF No.
5122/6027/1979-80. The said document Ex.P.84 is Xerox
copy and it has been marked with objections. As per the
document, this claimant has claimed before the Land
Reforms that he is the tenant of Doddaiah. He has requested
the authority to reject his application and so his application
has been rejected.
.83. He admits that Ex.P.64 and 84 are related.
Ex.P.64 is the order in LRF No. 5122/6027/1979-80. This is
similar to Ex.P.84. As Ex.P.64 certified copy is available, the
objections in-respect of Ex.P.84 is over ruled.
.84. From Ex.P.71, it is seen that claimant No. 1 has
purchased Sy.No. 10, new Sy.No. 11 from Doddaiah. The
said Doddaiah has purchased the property in Sy.No. 10, new
Sy.No. 11 from Hanumaiah S/o Galappa.
74
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
.85. It is undisputed fact that Sy.No. 10 is an Inam
land and the land has been vested with the Government in
the year 1955. In pursuance to the grant made to Margaret,
she has sold 2 acres 39 guntas in-favour of Doddaiah as per
Ex.P.28 and the said Doddaiah had sold the said extent to
L.C. Ashok as per sale deed dated 27.03.1967 as per Ex.P.29.
The boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.28 shows East by Sy.No.
60, West by River, North by Sy.No. 11 and South by Sy.No.
64, 65. The property purchased by Doddaiah has been
already sold to Ashok. Except Ex.P.28, there is no document
to show that Doddaiah owned any other extent in Sy.No. 10
measuring 2.39 acres. The Ex.P.71 sale deed executed in-
favour of Galiswamy by Doddaiah will not convey any title or
possession to him as his vendor had already sold the property
purchased by him in-respect of Sy.No. 10 to L.C. Ashok.
Even ignoring the latest order of cancellation of revenue
entries which were standing in-favour of Galiswamy -
claimant No. 1, based on the earlier revenue entires also he
would not be entitled to compensation as his vendor
Doddaiah had neither title nor possession in-respect of 1 acre
75
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
20 guntas. As claimant No. 1 failed to prove title as well as
possession he is not entitled for compensation.
.86. PW.2 has stated that his father L.C. Ashok
subsequent to the purchase on 27.03.1967 was the absolute
owner in possession of the property till his death on
21.05.2011. The claimants are his only legal heirs and they
became absolute owners in possession of the property until
property came to be acquired by the B.D.A. for formation of
Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout. Ex.P.33 is the death
certificate of L.C. Ashok and Ex.P.34 is the family
Genealogical tree, which corroborate the contention of PW.2.
.87. PW.2 has stated that his father L.C. Ashok paid
taxes to the property and during his life time he has not
executed any sale deed nor created any encumbrance over
the property. Subsequent to his death, the claimants 3 to 5
have become absolute owners. So they are entitled for
compensation payable. Ex.P.30 is the MR made in pursuance
to the sale deed in-favour of L.C. Ashok. Ex.P.31 is the
endorsement, which discloses that mutation entry has been
dilapidated.
76
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
.88. Ex.P.32 is the receipt patta. From the said
document, it is not known to which survey number it pertains
to. However, there is reference to khatha No. 127. The
khatha number mentioned in Ex.P.46 RTC Extract is not the
khatha number mentioned in Ex.P.32 receipt patta. Ex.P.46 is
the RTC Extract for the year 2021-22 and claim of claimants
3 to 5 has been entered jointly to an extent of 2 acres 39
guntas.
.89. Ex.P.47 is the Settlement Aakarbandh in-respect
of Sy.No. 10/2 measuring 3 acres 19 guntas. Ex.P.49 is the
endorsement, which discloses that the register in-respect of
MR 4/73-74 pertaining to Sy.No. 10 is not available.
.90. PW.2 has stated that Narasimhaiah fraudulently
tampered with the RTC Extract in collusion with the Revenue
Officials, behind the back of L.C. Ashok and his legal heirs
and even though he has no manner of right, title and interest
with regard to the schedule lands. PW.2 has stated that
bogus MR No. 4/73-74 was entered without any notice to
claimants 3 to 5. Ex.P.20 RTC Extract discloses that the
entries are made during 1973-74. During life time of L.C.
77
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
Ashok i.e., till 2011 he has not challenged the said entry.
L.C. Ashok was not a rustic villager but a landlord who had
purchased 51 acres in the year 1967. Probably L.C. Ashok as
he was not in possession did not bother to challenge the
entries during his life time.
.91. It is stated by PW.2 that after coming to know
about the fraud played by the said Narasimhaiah, the
claimants 3 to 5 have preferred R.A. No. 178/2019-20 before
the Assistant Commissioner and after hearing both sides,
R.A. was allowed and setting aside MR No. 4/1973-74 and
further directing that names of claimants 3 to 5 to be
restored. Ex.P.39 is the said order. It is stated that being
aggrieved by the said order, the legal heirs of Narasimhaiah
filed R.P. No. 153/2020 before the Deputy Commissioner and
during pendency of the said Revision Petition, the claimants 3
to 5 had filed W.P. No. 32628/2018 seeking directions against
the B.D.A.for disbursement of compensation. The legal heirs
of Narasimhaiah also filed W.P. No. 10570/2020. Both writ
petition cases have been clubbed and the Deputy
Commissioner who was still seized of the revision petition was
78
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
directed to dispose of the same expeditiously and further
granting liberty to the B.D.A. to deposit the compensation
before the Civil Court. It is stated that the Revision Petition is
rejected by Deputy Commissioner on 02.11.2021 in R.P. No.
153/2020 as per Ex.P.41, thereby affirming the names of the
claimants 3 to 5 in the revenue records. It is stated that in
the revenue records names of claimants 3 to 5 have been
shown and the same has presumptive value under the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
.92. The legal heirs of Narasimhaiah filed W.P. No.
21900/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
challenging the orders of the revenue authorities in-favour of
claimants 3 to 5. The Hon'ble High Court has disposed off
the writ petition as per Ex.P.24 directing the reference Court
not to be swayed away by the revenue entires or subsequent
order passed by Revenue Authorities while deciding the rights
of the parties in accordance with law. Further directed to
decide the claims of the parties regarding their entitlement to
seek compensation as expeditiously as possible and at any
rate, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of
79
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
certified copy of the order. It has been observed that the
parties shall not only be entitled to compensation but also all
benefits arising under the L.A. Act, and B.D.A. Act.
.93. During cross-examination it is elicited that PW.2
came to know about bogus entry made in the revenue records
in-respect of Sy.No. 10 in the year 2018. PW.2 admits that
Narasimhaiah had filed O.S.No. 376/1969 against his father
seeking injunction and the said suit was decreed in-favour of
Narasimhaiah. He admits that the learned Judge has held
that Narasimhaiah had been in settled possession of the land.
He admits that his father has challenged the judgment in
O.S.No. 376/1969. Ex.P.39 is the said judgment. It is
admitted that his father engaged an advocate by name
Vidhyaraj in O.S.No. 376/1969. He denies that as per
Ex.P.13 it indicates continuous possession of Narasimhaiah
and his legal heirs till today. He admits that Narasimhaiah
was tenant under Inamdar. However he pleads ignorance
that Narasimhaiah's father Nanjundappa was cultivating
under the Inamdar. He denies the grant made in-favour of
Margaret Norris as per Ex.P.25 has been set aside. He
80
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
admits that he has produced documents with regard to 2
acres 29 guntas and has not produced any documents in-
respect of 5 acres 3 guntas. He admits that in Ex.P.50 and
51, name of Narasimhaiah has been mentioned and the same
has been secured from Kandaya Bhavana. He admits that his
father has not challenged Ex.P.50 and 51 during his life time.
He denies that intentionally he has not produced the note
sheet pertaining to Ex.P.50 and 51. When it is suggested that
he has not challenged Ex.P.50 and 51 endorsements made in-
favour of Narasimhaiah, PW.2 has stated that the Tribunal
had granted 5 acres 3 guntas in-favour of Margaret Norris.
He admits that Ex.P.26 and 27 pertaining to list of properties
in the name of Inamdar Norris. He admits that Ex.P.50 and
51 have given by same office of the Tahsildar, who has issued
Ex.P.26 and 27. He admits that in the Gazette notification
names of legal heirs of Narasimhaiah are shown; that award
has been passed on 03.11.2011. He admits that his father
was alive on that day and his father was not alive when the
award was approved. To the question on what basis he has
claimed, PW.2 has stated that in Sy.No. 10/1, he has got 1
81
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
acre 25 guntas and in Sy.No. 10/2 he has got 1 acre 14
guntas on the basis of the grant order and boundaries in the
sale deed. He admits in the sale deed the survey number has
not been mentioned as 10/1 and 10/2; that he has not
produced any documents to show that Sy.No. 10/1
measuring 1 acre 25 guntas and Sy.No. 10/2 measuring 1
acre 14 guntas, he has produced documents to show that
Sy.No. 10/2 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas. He has denied the
suggestion that neither his father nor his father's vendor
Doddaiah was in possession of the property in question and
that in the RTC Extract at Col. No. 9 name of Doddaiah or
Inamdar has not been mentioned. He does not know whether
from 1989 till today tax has been paid.
.94. It is elicited from PW.2 that Narasimhaiah had
filed O.S.No. 376/1969 against his father seeking for
injunction. PW.2 also admits that in the said suit Doddaiah
and Margaret Norris are the parties and the said suit was
decreed in-favour of Narasimhaiah. He admits that the
learned Judge has held that Narasimhaiah has been settled
in possession of the land. Ex.P.12 and 13 are the judgment
82
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
and decree in O.S.No. 376/1969. The said suit was filed for
injunction on 18.07.1969 against the defendant No. 1 L.C.
Ashok. The defendant No. 3 has been given up on
17.04.1970. The learned Judge had observed that " the
plaintiff has produced Kandayam receipts as per Ex.P.1 to 7
and Ex.P.8 to 10 are the pahani extracts for the year 1966-
67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. He denies that the defendant No.
1 is in possession of the suit schedule property . PW.1
Narasimhaiah also examined one witness as PW.2
Muniyappa." The Court has observed that "evidence of
plaintiff remained unchallenged. He does not find compelling
reason to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff. The Kandayam
receipts produced by the plaintiff indicates that the plaintiff
is a tenant under M.V. Norris. The pahani extract for the
year 1968-69 shows that the plaintiff is in possession of 4
acres 39 guntas." The learned Judge has decreed the suit.
Ex.P.13 is the decree. The schedule property of the plaintiff is
mentioned as 2 acres 39 guntas of dry land in Sy.No. 10 and
the boundaries are same as mentioned in the sale deed of
L.C. Ashok. In Ex.P.39 the interim order granted in-favour of
83
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
plaintiff Narasimhaiah. From the order, it is seen that the
application filed by L.C. Ashok for vacating exparte temporary
injunction has been dismissed. The evidence discloses that
defendant No. 1 L.C. Ashok has not filed any appeal against
the said order. There is no material placed by L.C. Ashok to
show that he has taken possession of the suit schedule
property from the plaintiff Narasimhaiah or his LRs claimant
No. 2(a) to (e).
.95. The oral and documentary evidence clearly
discloses that though L.C. Ashok father of claimant No.
5 had revenue entries in his name but possession of the
property remained with Narasimhaiah father of the
claimant No.2(b) to (e) and subsequent to his death his
legal heirs i.e., claimant No.2(b) to (e).
.96. As per Section 65 of the Limitation Act,
1963, the statutory period of limitation for possession of
immovable property or any interest is 12 years in case
of private property. If a person does not take
appropriate steps for the possession within 12 years his
rights gets extinguished. A person in possession cannot
84
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
be ousted by another person except by due process of
law and once 12 years period of adverse possession is
over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the
possessory owner acquires right, title and interest
possessed by the owner as the case may be against
whom he has prescribed.
.97. From the above discussion, I have held that
Ex.P.7 grant order is not clear in whose favour
occupancy right is granted and this Court cannot
express its view. The order of MRAT Ex.P.5 and order of
the Spl. Deputy Commissioner granting occupancy
rights as per Ex.P.7 would not bind L.C. Ashok as he
was not made party to the said proceedings and
consequently his legal heirs. As a result, Ex.P.25 grant
made in-favour of Inamdar to an extent of 2 acres 39
guntas and as per Ex.P.1 grant in-favour of
Narasimhaiah to an extent of 2 acres will subsist.
.98. On plain reading of Section 3(1)(b) of Inams
Abolition Act, it is clear that all right, title and interest
vesting in Inamdar have ceased to exist and vested
85
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
absolutely in the State of Karnataka free from all
encumbrances.
.99. The interest of permanent tenant will not
extinguish or vanish after vesting but are protected
under the Act.
.100. The claim of Narasimhaiah in O.S.No.
376/1969 is that he was tenant to an extent of 5 acres;
that he has been granted 2 acres and his claim to an
extent of 2 acres 29 guntas has been rejected and so he
has preferred an appeal. During pendency of Appeal,
the defendant Ashok had interfered with his possession
of 2 acres 39 guntas. The Court had granted
injunction. During life time of L.C. Ashok he did not file
any suit seeking for possession. Narasimhaiah
continued to be in possession during his life time and
thereafter his legal heirs, they have perfected possessory
title. As L.C. Ashok and his legal heirs did not seek
possession during statutory period, so Narasimhaiah
had perfected possessory title. Even though sale deed
dated 27.03.1967 Ex.P.29 stood in the name of L.C.
86
L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
Ashok, since he and legal heirs are not in possession,
his legal heirs claimants 3 to 5 are not entitled for
compensation.
.101. Consequently LRs of Narasimhaiah are
entitled to compensation in-respect of 1 acre 30 guntas
(2 acres less 10 guntas granted to Khasim Sab). They
are also entitled to compensation in-respect of 2 acres
39 guntas as they have perfected possessory title.
Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered.
.102. Point No.3: In view of my findings on the
above points 1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in L.A.C. No. 95/2017, is partly allowed.
LRs of Claimant No.2 in-respect of Sy.No. 10/1 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas of Bheemanakuppe village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka are entitled for 21 guntas cash compensation of Rs. 42,00,000/-
87L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022 along with accrued interest thereon and for 1 acre 4 guntas developed site to an extent of 10541 sq. feet.
LRs of claimant No. 2 shall have to execute indemnity bond with one surety, undertaking to re-deposit the compensation amount either in this court or in any other court, if ordered to do so, which amount they are going to receive in this case.
LRs of Claimant No.2 are entitled to interest under Section 34 of the L.A. Act. The amount already paid by L.A.O., has to be deducted.
Claim in-respect of claimants 1, 3 to 5 is dismissed.
The Reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in L.A.C. No. 45/2022, is partly allowed.
Claimants 1 to 5 in-respect of Sy.No. 10/2 measuring 3 acre 5 guntas of Bheemanakuppe village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka are entitled for 1 acre 3 guntas developed site to an extent of 10302 sq. feet. Claimants 1 to 5 for 2 acres 2 guntas have already received cash compensation of Rs. 1,64,00,000/-.
Claimants 1 to 5 shall have to execute indemnity bond with one surety, undertaking to 88 L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022 re-deposit the compensation amount either in this court or in any other court, if ordered to do so, which amount they are going to receive in this case.
Claimants 1 to 5 are entitled to interest under Section 34 of the L.A. Act. The amount already paid by L.A.O., has to be deducted.
Claim in-respect of claimants 7 to 9 is dismissed.
Original Judgment be kept in LAC No.95/2017 and copy of the same be kept in LAC No.45/2022.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 28th day of November, 2022.) (Sheila B.M.) II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS IN LAC NO. 95/2017:
P.W.1: B.N. Somashekar P.W.2: Ramanand Ashok Gowda P.W.3: Galiswamy 89 L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022 C.W.1: P.Dinesh
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No. 95/2017:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Grant Order Ex.P.2 Report in case No.48 & 128 Ex.P.3 Grant order in case No.58-59 Ex.P.4 Register of Inams Ex.P.5 Order in Appeal No.2973/1967 and 358/1991 Ex.P.6 Order sheet in case No.3 & 129/59-60 Ex.P.7 Grant order after remand in case No.3 & 129/59-60 Ex.P.8 Statement of Narasimhaiah, S/o Nanjundappa Ex.P.8(a) Typed copy of deposition of Narasimhaiah Ex.P.9 Statement of Narasimhaiah, S/o Narasegowda Ex.P.9(a) Typed copy of deposition of Narasimhaiah Ex.P.10 Statement of Muniyappa Ex.P.10(a) Typed copy of deposition of Muniyappa Ex.P.11 Endorsement dated 04.05.1973 (illegible copy) Ex.P.11(a) Typed copy of endorsement Ex.P.12 & 13 Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.376/1969 Ex.P.13(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.13 Ex.P.14 Mutation extract Ex.P.14(a) Mutation extract Ex.P.15 Order sheet in LR.No.2538/1975-76 90 L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022 Ex.P.16 Form No.10 Ex.P.17 Endorsement Ex.P.18 Sale deed dated 03.09.1971 Ex.P.19 Order in R.A.No.360/2015-16 Ex.P.20 Handwritten 6 RTCs Ex.P.21 5 RTCs Ex.P.22 Award notice Ex.P.23 Order in WP.No.21900/2021 Ex.P.24 Certified copy of order in WP.
No.21900/2021 Ex.P.25 Grant order Ex.P.26 Register No.6 Ex.P.27 Register No.8 Ex.P.28, 28(a) & Sale deed dated 27.03.1967 along with 29, 29(a) typed copy Ex.P.30 M.R. Ex.P.31 Enodrsement Ex.P.32 Receipt of Patta Ex.P.33 Death certificate Ex.P.34 Family Tree Ex.P.35 Application made by Late. Narasimhaiah Ex.P.36 & 36(a) Typed copy of deposition of Narasimhaiah Ex.P.37 Report of the Seplical Tahashildar for Inams Abolition in case No.48 & 128 Ex.P.38 & 38(a) Typed copy of order of the Special D.C. in case No.48 & 128 Ex.P.39 Order of the A.C. in RA.No.178/2019-20 Ex.P.40 Order in WP. No.10570/2020 and connected cases Ex.P.41 Order of the D.C. in R.P. No.153/2020 91 L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022 Ex.P.42 Mutation order Ex.P.43 to 45 Encumbrance Ex.P.46 RTC Ex.P.47 Settlement Aakar band Ex.P.48 Consent Award Ex.P.49 to 51 Endorsement Ex.P.52 Certified copy of order in WP.No.10570/2020 and C/W WP.No.32628/2018 Ex.P.53 Information letter dated 21.08.2018 Ex.P.54 to 60 Acknowledgment Ex.P.61 Mulla Tippani Ex.P.61(a) Typed copy of Mulla Tippani Ex.P.62 Karda Ex.P.62(a) Typed copy of Karda Ex.P.63 Certified copy of sketch Ex.P.64 Order in LRF No.5122 & 6027/1979-80 Ex.P.65 Order in LRF No.INA 1899/1979-80 Ex.P.66 Certified copy of R.P.No.142/2001-02 Ex.P.67 Certified copy of R.P.No.142/2001-02 Ex.P.68 Certified copy of Revision application Ex.P.69 Certified copy of R.A.No.360/2015-16 Ex.P.70 Certified copy of Vakalath Ex.P.71 & 71(a) Sale deed dated 03.09.1971 and typed copy Ex.P.72 Mutation Ex.P.73 to 75 RTCs Ex.P.76 Survey records Ex.P.77 Order sheet in R.A.(s) No.360/2015-16 Ex.P.78 Award notice 92 L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022 Ex.P.79 & 79(a) Notification dated 18.02.2010 and relevant portion in Sl.No.602 Ex.P.80 & 81 Encumbrance Ex.P.82 Endorsement Ex.P.83 Order copy of RA(S) No.177/2019-20 Ex.P.84 Certified copy of Order in LRF No.5122 & 6027/1979-80 Ex.P.85 Application U/Sec.152 of CPC filed in Miscellaneous Ex.P.86 & 87 Notice in INA CR.No.8/2012-13 and written arguments Ex.P.88 Order sheet in INA Misc.No.8/2012-13 Ex.C.1 : Original INA/case/3/58-59 and 48 and 128/58-59 case record Ex.C.2 : Register No.6 Ex.C.3 : Re constructed Form No.9 Register Ex.C.4 : Scanned Copy of original record Ex.C.5 : Pen drive
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS IN LAC NO. 45/2022:
P.W.1: Ramanand Ashok Gowda P.W.2: B.N. Somashekar 93 L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS IN LAC NO. 45/2022:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Order in WP.No.21900/2021 Ex.P.2 Grant order Ex.P.3 Register No.6 Ex.P.4 Register No.8 Ex.P.5 & 6 Sale deed dated 27.03.1967 Ex.P.5(a) & 6(a) Typed copy of sale deed Ex.P.7 M.R. Ex.P.8 Endorsement Ex.P.8(a) Typed copy of statement of Narasimhaiah, S/o Nanjundappa before special D.C. Ex.P.9 Patta receipt Ex.P.9(a) Typed copy of statement of Narasimhaiah, S/o Narasegowda before special D.C. Ex.P.10 Death certificate Ex.P.10(a) Typed copy of statement of Muniyappa before special D.C. Ex.P.11 Family Tree Ex.P.12 Application made by late Narasimhaiah Ex.P.13 Deposition of Narasimhaiah Ex.P.13(a) Typed copy of deposition of Narasimhaiah Ex.P.14 Report of the Special Tahashildar for Inams Abolition in case No.48 & 128 Ex.P.15 Order of the Special D.C. in case No.48 & 128 Ex.P.15(a) Typed copy of order of Special D.C. in case No.48 & 128 Ex.P.16 Order of the A.C. in RA.No.178/2019-20 Ex.P.17 Order in WP. No.10570/2020 and 94 L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022 connected cases Ex.P.18 Order of the D.C. in R.P. No.153/2020 Ex.P.19 Mutation order Ex.P.20 to 22 Encumbrance certificates Ex.P.23 RTC Extract Ex.P.24 Settlement Aakar band Ex.P.25 Consent Award Ex.P.26 to 28 Endorsement Ex.P.29 Notice dated 21.08.2018 Ex.P.30 to 36 Acknowledgments Ex.P.37 Tippani Ex.P.37(a) Typed copy of Tippani Ex.P.38 Karda Ex.P.38(a) Typed copy of Karda Ex.P.39 Judgment and decree copy of O.S.NO.376/69 Ex.P.40 Original copy of Sketch Ex.P.41 Register of Inams Ex.P.42 Mutation extract M.R.No.4/1973-74 Ex.P.43 Order sheet in LRF.No.2538/1975-76 (illegible copy) Ex.P.44 Saguvali chit Ex.P.45 Endorsement dated 03.11.2015 Ex.P.46 Six RTCs Ex.P.47 Five RTCs Ex.P.48 Akarband Ex.P.49 Mutation No.3, 4, 5/1973-74 Ex.P.50 LRF proceedings in No.5133/6027/7980 Ex.P.51 Notice dated 27.11.1980 95 L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022 Ex.P.52 Form No.24 Ex.P.53 Seventeen Tax paid receipts Ex.P.54 RTC in 1996-97 Ex.P.55 Sale deed dated 21.9.1961 Ex.P.56 Certified copy of ADLR/BS/HB/47/97-98 Ex.P.57 Hissa Sketch Ex.P.58 Hadbasth Ex.P.59 Four RTCs Ex.P.60 Two revised endorsements Ex.P.61 Order in Appeal No.2973/1967 and 358/1971 dated 4.8.1971 Ex.P.62 Order sheet in case No.3 & 129/1959-60 Ex.P.63 Grant order after remand in case No.3 & 129/1959-60 Ex.P.64 Certified copy of Hissa Tippani Ex.P.65 Cross-examination of LAC No.95/2017
5. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT (In both cases):
Nil
6. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT (In both cases):
Nil (Sheila B.M.), II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, & Spl. Judge Bangalore.Digitally signed by SHEILA B M
DN: cn=SHEILA B M,ou=HIGH COURT SHEILA B M OF KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN Date: 2022.11.30 17:28:04 IST 96 L.A.C. No. 95/2017 C/w L.A.C. No. 45/2022