Karnataka High Court
Honnappa vs The Land Tribunal on 12 March, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
!;\7'
K
439/
I."
fifl' EAI1'GALGn.n.
THE HIGH COURT OF
Dated this the 12th day of Ma1ch,__f2i')fi'f§:' _
1-an Horrnu: MR wands nv siuvfi '%mbniA%'m%rmAn'f
HONNAPPA S]0"SA;IBANN.§'r . " '
SINCE DECEASED BY LR 5'
SI-IANKAR s_/o HQNNAPPA, * '~
AGE: 40.YRS, ' 'V
QCC: ' .
R/Q-vSE4DA_M,'_ ~ _ _ .
DIST: 585. 222.':_
2 snkaamfirwaafi
SINCE m:cEAsED~«Bv LR
stiafiugima' 1'Q_&;AcmPPA,
' DIST: (.1-'ULB.".R(}.A
VEABH'T OI ll
'AGE:6O YRS}.
oi3_c:' :\,c.:::e:_, ' '
R/O'SEDA.M, V '
U, D] 1uAn '
" Aqhgse. YRS,
' 'ecu: 'M321,
n-- I'
.-BIST: GUI.BAR""' *
RIO SEDAM pnvrwrnnmaca
x 'T min
SEDAM -- 7535 222.
2
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.
SEDAM SUB--DIVISION.
SEDAM.
DIST: GULBARGA -- 585 222.
3. HUSSAIN SAHEBA BEE V
w_/o svmo msna,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
occ: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O RAZI-M MOGALPURA,
23-2-442, " _ ~ _ "
HYDERABAD -- 500 004. i .; RESPQNDENTS
[By Sri. R.I§;'~w!:Iatti;."At11£;.. tics}? {of}? 115 2;
Sri. G. Adv. for R3}
PE-1'-maxi»-*,;'zs FELEE UEBVER Armctizs 226 AND
227 09 'I'HE.vC£)N3'PI'I1J'!'ION oF"iNj31A I-'RAYING 'I'O QUASI-I THE
ORDER DATfED;*ee26»i2419i"57 Ai~iD=.OF£DEI<' DT. 18-6-1996 PASSED
BY THE LANx_3..,T'aiB_uNAL._ SED'A_M'._DECL.ARING Tl-IE LANDS HELD
BY THE I3F;C"LARAiT1' 'AS"W_i'T'i4'ii'i*i CEILING LEMTTS,
cow OF "s.%.lHIC%:I.V_I:':'»_ AT AMIEXURE 'C' AND ANNEXURE 'D'
RESVPECTIVELY mp
VTHIS PE'I'I'i'l:_GN' comma ON FOR I-iF:ARi"G, DAY',
couR'mADE 1':-IE'Fc..1,LQw1Nc3:
T1".-.is "'1"'it '"'titio'1 arises in the backgrouzid of .,he
~. Sections 63, 64, 65, 66, 6'7 etc. in Chapter-
'of: Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [for short,
V " Vetifie Act].
2. Writ petitioners are incidentally beneficiaries of the
provisions of the Act, particularly Section 77 of the Act,
/V
3
which provides for dispoal of surplus lands \(este:d_'_m the
{.15
--*-t* in fcveur ef landless "M-sens be'
community subject to certain eonditions."' 'Z: g V
3. Petitioners, four in of". *1
and one such grant order '2d- to Item
been passed by Lhe £61 Sedaxxi a sequel 110
"s order d'*ed 11-"E3-19':-o'6, by --ms-1: er tribunal had
determined" V 1'75 acres 15
guntas proceedings in No
passing the order in
, _ .. Eb!' L it apggarsfi clubbcd
together .,fl1eVVw:Vdeoieretions flied by one Syed Barker
declarations filed by his kith and kin
' that the four deelsrants together constitute
ii A had determined surplus holdings on such
V' V. the deciarants by fiiing 'WP Nos 5537-91 0
premise. The order of the tribunal he... been questiened
1977,
amongst which, the writ petition of the present third
respondent figured as WP No 5588 of 1977. In terms of
4
petition, set 's'de tht uer followed due procedure and retnanded the"
disposalinaccordance with Iattff ._ A it ._ l _ ._ .A l
4. The tribunal, d ..\.r_.l_p___ents s1_1.chA___._s had already Section '77 vcfthe notices only to the ndatter in so far as the dec1a1°ation5v'.oi;'°me *-tlnrd respondent Smt Hussain snheba neaisicmem ri and n rdrnn 25-12.-19.37. ..... .,...1,t_ ra-._.... ....- -- - _-- hoidingllthat Vthetieciarant who had inciic"'d 'o be me to an 'extent of 55 acres of land comprised in five V VA the total extent of 65 acres 22 guntas it ' held as holding of lands "within the ceiling limit, 11-I-1fr\a ''1'! GI! L'e (VP J.\I& u village, according to the tribunal, was a tenanted land and which had been granted. in favour of a tenant, and therefore should be excluded irom the holding of the 1DrXl 5 declarant and if so excluded, the remaining not' land being 53 "ere 1 game Le. mflrin tue cdE:'_ing'«r.-_.__i'« _-34 acres of 13' class land sho11ld__be__heId; their was not required to surrender the". *1 lands in the other suweybniitxibers
5. The nibuna1vthoughu"pa.eeed" neucii order, it appears, no consequential taken and the petitioners inpjijovssession of the land
-54. man. 54'!-a-~-uvurnpwwd '-r----... _ hose 71 thew their favour in the year decletretion the third respondent and 'being comprised S3; I§'oV'5.V29 of the very village measuring 12 'V .....
~. the tribunal sue motu reviewed its order fie; on 18-6-1996, a copy of which produced at " * A1_1nexure-D to the writ petition, but aflirmed its earlier erder. 'Wm *'r-"nu? 1 n nation; it nnpeme, was taken up for Jl.L\/ I-'II-I-\I II' I-All Iuulunufluon -' -- ----r
-_ __ ;|_.. ._;..u.:_...-..... I resumption of the lands 1' I11 I11 pen 1:? *1 t"r'"e of 6 four notices dated 20-3-2000 issued by the Assistant Commissioner. Petitioners, who got of these notices, approached this oourt' 'J-I. 32764__57 II'. 53092' mung -Innirna n h:
|gI.\I,lJ.l--ivLa ass: - ':7-Jr these notices received by: t'4nem"h1_.it~ also tinned owe: p's'sed by the tribunal on 19-6-199e_iii.e. messages: passed by the tribunal on remand of its earlier omer dated I_1_---10- it
7. It i i ineanwhile, the Assistant "te...I')£ass an order dated 31-8-
Inn 4- A 114- A..-_ 2 ............... ....... e'200'2",ea.copyVoi"t 't Ann um-G u 'v'vu. petition; developments and cancelling the in favour of the petitioners and directed resumption of the land which had A when A' this order was sought to be given effe-t nnfifinnnm H' is f are ff .1' if '.23 3 D E:
C C E3' I-
99.
'H <2 5:
53
fr 2%' '1 K E E s I s S I I E I :1
1
:
A 0, L11 ..pertitione1's have yet again approached thi court by filing the present writ petition and have obtained an interim 7 order -1' _t_y to protect their possession and the possession. ' been issued anfdthe shad it Assistant Commissioner with K Hntti, learned Govemmen:t~~P1ee.der'VAthe respondent is represented by Sri Statements of
- , ....... .. and so of the Assistant CommissionetjVas'Weii'~é,e._ti'1e respondent. TL 4: of the writ petition, the to S?
"3 I petitioners further appiications seeknxg for oi"their~'possession by way of a restraint order t gandrrir some additional materials particularly the it ' of the tribunal in respect of the pendency of ~ I: +:
3' '*- M" "ed L" one T!'-ammaflzm ID nprngn 'I 'IV; 5.: no-
" x ufijlose favour the iand bearing Sy No 5'24/'1 had been granted by the land tribunal, but questioned by the third respondent in a writ petition and the matter having been V "THIGH --r- .-- ..--. _ _.._ .__ 4 '*-posse'sfio 1 sum cumvauun 8 remanded to the tribunal at her instane-e,_ is_stiil..pen_;_ii_ng consideration before the tribunal after the to mnt..._d that the very third res_pondent__had these proceedings that she was o,'.1y.Vin eI_L.;_a_:lo11' of.t11-1:;
4.Q.~_ 'I -_ , land and not a tenant was in ctfltijiation ofl.t'ne if). 'ppearing 'ii the pet_._i__,ers, submission of Sri 'learned counsel, is that the parties to the the cases requiring to be determination of surplus holding. of they h'"v'in" am pu- 1.-
possession_dof"ltVparce1seof land found to be surplus lb _ t't:E:1e.Lngasn gr thedeelarant and that having happened in the ever since the petitioners have been in t. e ' m1 if 51.1411 grants were J. Al-out-I-\a.' 4-.
.. _tobe"canoe11ed at at much later point of time, patticmarly ' terms of the order of the year 2002. and as a sequel to the earlier orders of the tribunal, about which the art/I W 9 petitioners are not aware of, it was only properfliiat they should have been given an opportunity of hvisefore passing such orders, which, undoubtecilyhss at 11, W th reference to t1ie3:vp°_~Vr0visionsV or reviewed, it is necesseiiiy fniuthority has to iss 'e notice to all ..that.«t1'1e petitioners herein can "to interested persons, as the petitioners pessibiiity «r --4- grantee and therefore submits that the V' ._ A Vpefitioners shouidihave been given an opportunity to have V such proceedings. Submission is that '"'-e~"'~--'=G 'user heir-cr m... 'Vacnan1.1_'.1_1 order.
Lb \l'hJ AA pwhicli definiteiy affects the petitioners' interest, any other " " «..proceedmgs which can lead to such order are proceedings which are affected the interests of the petitioners and 32/ 10 therefore the principles of natural justice the perrrns Wh' we likei" to be edfected J h 1 --.dit*en« opportunity or should be put o_nnotice* such orders.
12. It is the submissioflof learned feoiineeiii for the petitioners that i__ petitioners are in possession and cultifirgvitioitofiy therefore they ..u..., we to be Q in'*ony...proceedmgs which can be aff'eoted'ii.t'nqei1"'"pre§ei1t'poeeeeei'n and the uer oi' we tribunal. "to be bad. Learned counsel would subniit this that the petitioners could have deflxiitelya pointed out to the tribunal Whether the earkier _&*d"1'-,ea1ie for ar" modifieauon, pa. ...e%'1y the ..rder -1' ._ 4"ithe had determined the surplus i1o'ci"'1g -1- l of the original declarant and if that. -order could i " * he demonstrated to be a correct order, the petitioners :3
-nld not wave the present suflbrings and consequences. 1 I I , __'I ;u_. A - - x 4-an' 'I-:11 IIUU. bULI11§§C1, 'L'.1u:1"t'3fG1"\'3, \lI.nlE|.\J.ll.I.ll6 va .u. 0 .....J . W rc=s5':o;
-11 the order passed by the Assistant Commiss1oner._:under A11 1 xu.1t:-u, u 't 343 the orders paee.d""'bj;..'_~ tribunal under Annexure-1".) andmc, botltof and the same, but the latter order; 45 earlier order, they shouldhe nlatter Luaasnaau u. u\.o -4-3 _ -... ......~--- - remanded tn fh tri u--nl proper "enquiry and pass CD 5:' P'!
3., 1 <3 :3' 3 E. 2' 'S .33» .5, h on 'I1 0 {D % sn 1 S J. - I'I'l..l. .
"'1" .
Shastry; respond: :1'. Sr:
Sh£tst1'i_ siii§::11ts«.t11<1:t'« petitioners in the first instance have :_4"qn:esfion the orders passed by the ..deterrnining the holdings of surplus of the ' ndent, an to whether it is sm'p.1...s or fh rwis ~. __s'ttbii1itted is that the petitioners are parties proceedings before the land tribunal to determine V " ' sttrpius holding of a declarant; that the proceedings are "n..tta hm eh proceedings. in rem, but they are virtually .. ...-.. .10
5.-
__A4I.._ proceedings e declare;
12 petitioners, if at all be persons who entered intothe scene later andunder ditfexent provisions" oi' 77 of t__e _ H V .
surplus holding of the 'woe determined in terms of 53 It is therefore urged": examine the merits of + e..0T'd rs either under Section th" Art and if mat caxinotiie cannot question the consequentiéslsits.sof the Assistant Commissioner, whicti which follows as a matter of AA deluay land laehes and is to be dismissed straight away; - it " an order passed by the land tribunal Way back in the year 1987 cannot be questioned by filing a writ petition in h/ V .ct, can nevertheless be said 'lfi ;u..r the year 2005 and it is hopelessly hit by delay laohes and should be dismissed outnghuy. It in this fee that even reference to ._ the 1""w6 {Annexure--D}, 'f""* n-seen' .egi11g.tfl';.',.. "
years thereafter, is she sufie-ring duevtieiay and laches.
15. One another "u:y' Sri Shastrl petiiiotlex-so might have questione'dflthev- _ notlee dated 20-3-2000 by having not pursued these .....a "asst M. .
ut qoeuuens its elogeal cenclu....,.. ....- _, .
he_v_lI1g'tquestio'ned_s legality of the order of the land passeesn 1_8--6--'1996,_ and having ebandoned V :.;\;1rlz4'itA:£)clj.!:ltions and this court having reserved liberty to tl1e"'ffiet11.*!oners t- qu subsequent u r .-stlon the validity of the I' 'I... A-on a-G an all __.._I.. -1.' L .1 ..
I. u; 1'1 1Bl..l:|.l 1l..I.l.l.I..I ULULIUL, up 0' * ..(levelopment subsequent to the of the writ petitions, the petitioners should not be permitted to question the $/.0 ',-
14 legality of the land tribunal order passed on Tl€¥a6-- 1996, concluding that the third L reeporldent did 'not have any surplus land in 1_1e_r_holdi11g. A
16. Learned counsel for "
su_r_riit that the or Orcler II Rule 2 SP0 -ht of the petitioners agitatiné' otherwise of the order of writ petition, though may question the legality of the are able to explain the 91" ---
order.
.1-.1_7. _V Srii-?_ K Hatti, learned Government Pieader, = behalf of the state,_ has made available the submits that the petitioners in fact have not V. ' to question the orders of the land tribunal in so far ' of the declarant and with regard to the order passed by V 15 the Assistant Commissioner, submission is V---"that the Assistant Commissioner has the power to '_ or to withhold or cancel land "-- 1 'Me' ''-'="*_''--' such "ca_n_nct__ find fault with the cancellation"'o1der.'_51passed'; 53"' the Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner is to theord.ers passed by the land tribuna1...in_ noidsig third respondent 18, _ In ihaire . anxious consideration to the stibmissionsi 'madeat the Bar. A perusal of the records V the court does not necessarily indicate that Atbhn +..sn;.ém;1 ad nvnmiqed flu . g_1_ gin ti 1115. Q1] t_11g1g- m 111; A an<i,__'ziad passed orders on a proper evaluatio- nv w census 9-! - _ .. _.__ 'I-I.\I Ialflf Lulnfl.-I-I-al..l. 513. 'll of holding of each declarant and entitlement of the declarant. In the earlier round, the tribunal had s/t 15 loroceeded on the premise that the dec1arat1ons',are to be 9 ":h° present round in terms of the D, it is indicated that the third ;«es;,onaent tsp treated a separate declaxarit his not a. member of the fatnily of i.e. father declarations were of. of each deciarant.
While respondent would constitttjze the family of her father Syed Em' be a valid arment if the ...¢-1..-1.:.!........ 4' 1.: A 1 1- tmru respondent.
deciarationvwas in if the declaration filed by the V is not in respect of her own holdings but in respeetV'V'eof':ho1di:1gs of her father and claming a right in d '"I9'. In so far as the argument relating to the locus stcmdi is concerns", '.-.n..*.le .. is was the. t...e writ neflfl tiers a_ . r......--.-.-- --.--.. --- -_ IV and that was the position in the f'i1'si:j; as petitioners have acquired sonic if lands after the passed its llortief mt! or-e.. -.a.ve been p t inffposesession feontinued to .. . ._.A__.. _, _ § 3"
D an ':1 tiuu, :J.l.l\f fj...-,uu_ef um Jaflds' 9.8 a consequenee. ::'o1.','_ I 1 1- 10- 1976 and having time thereafter in the year" remain in possession till 'tow;-_ it is G15115-3"--4ia'§'{':%F' thw e. . git.r..n -ppo_ mity even J -...
before the ianti as if the tribunal ""e1 'class not have any surplus holding, one of V is on the writ petitioners to lose their 9 U.!5_l':q "Tit tfi thfi gluul. uzuu this extent it should be said that they have, nds .
'""'"*'" ~'-M" A-"hr blame mm" W int rest i. ' \1|-I-Ii -I-no Ian -up-.- " u proceeding and should 'be given an oppo11_':unit3r before i the 'tribunal to put forth their version. 25/' / .18
20. One another reason for so concluding the 'I-_s.*n; geeedinus 'EE 3 Fr 9 :3.
C19
--s '53 E2.
'63' {IE 5:'-
'$9.
:-
E5' ':9.
=3 i :5'.
('f I *3- of the land tribunal. if the . some part of the surplus 4} petitioner, it is only the issnes 33 ot1..e t- eu,.h grantees to pe.ss« order which is .... -3 '"~_.,,..--
tu ES 6'ciI"}i--.s r'.'u.\}.~..u:u.. III ..i "ar'1a.n V that opportenjty « the Assistant earlier made will not ii;:.u.se--jlorvhhenetltii to the petitioners, as the V V 'V 2 '4 a ' eimny give effect to the .. --_--..l.._ orders "of cannot take ut'3u1Si 1 «variance to the order passed by the V It is the only real opportunity which the can gt is before the land tribunal and H v _rst;fl'icient locus to question that order of the tribunai. = earlier writ petitions in the year 200-' an 19
21. In so far as the question of deiay and V.iech's i-
concerned, I find that the proceedings ".1977 me all without notice to tt_1ep_p%etit:ione1's if 't ail 'escapee aware of time only in the year ieoo so :~e¢esresoi':;ss~¢s from the Assistant Commissioner resumption. filed writ petinhs before this 2002 and to that extent h was for the reason that Assitant Commissioner in fact and therefore it became assesses}! V;-carpiiitierrv t- file s t_res1_1_:_writ_ petition. It is no » f «.r1_'Vou_bt_ that there is some "itewal between the the present writ petition in the year 2005, but the V» 'T petitioners, if continue to remain in possession and ' ' O ;.I..__._ -4' possession, their possession IS uu fled by an eiits' for: it e .1' n...
U I fiC(~.'ql.l!-. 12, ~. (a) to (d') operate separately, ifi't':§'p'uu.'E': 20
subsequent action, it cannot be said that theiicanse of M' W' "cc be-i.'1g_inpcssession;'j:rctfia1:ea:_.tl"ien1 a live cause of action to defendtheir e3dstii;g}"p5osfes on; _ Therefore, I am of the View the distinct: 45 dismissed only on the g1'o7t1_tizi_of
22. In so far as petition is concerned, as noticed ear1ier,__ has not discussed 'V holdm of the vvfl' g-so 'cm 'on! 1 declarant. 'con'seqi1ences' mat c": ion Lu holder of the lands in terms of the will have to determine the deflriifion oi'. family as is indicated in sub-section (12) A41...)-.. 2 fl-=1-at-_ Ant nnr' L 6 L.|..lD nut. a..u.u.
._A..l-
ier fact that the family itself is the holder of lands in it " * resoect of which declaration is filed and it cannot be as the situations whether if holdings are of family 21 [(1) and other members of the very fami1y,V'izrho can otherwise become a farnily by 'chm selves :_'Lu'1'h..I.".!.IJ.'I.-.I._'l:6", ___;m_ a part of the declarant's family, _b1.1t_nevertiielessiientitle"for'* holding because of the definition f can file a declaration -in resnectg of the family holds good for fnat farnily sum 1 respect of that It is not as though in on holdings of one family the other aa'l'se--eome within the definition of can fi1e°rleclaratiens,~~"iihas been part of the main family, has it xiflleu ~ a declaration. Unless the other i filed by other members of the family are A ghgwn it: he dealers vva--in -.-; __ _._o__s in respect of their own surplus In! holdings there is no question of several persons cumming it * status of 'family' under one declaration and seeking to make several declarations Without the holdings are in the name of one person or one family. The land tribunal is 22 required to evince awareness to this position of while 23; In the result, this writ petition hes _eI1oive'ci, as the iinpugn d 11 1'3 p sse I t I. 3 3 CI.
'5? e E?' n né._'vi*"'bLLi=~i"~~ -9-ii'-L sex- .5, 13.. _,..., V. in the year 1986 or in 1996, fuiiyiriwin conformity with «law not' consonance with the remand directing the " . " di "of"Lh_:e':éiec1s:ations in accordance with law fj t_ V"foII"wing the proceduze as 'i'hVe~«'.'9rdersV'at Annexure 'C' and 'D' are quashed' by certiorarl. Consequently, the ~. "'t1iibiizis1.,_ for fresh examination of the deciaration ifi1cdt1jy respondent in accordance with law and in it " the of the discussions in this writ petition, 'ipertioularly with regard to the definition of 'family' and the V 2.3 entitlement of family in the Act_f'o1_f boldfitg of the family. Rule made absolute.
24. As a consequence to gnaelfing' "of orders and in View of the fact, that V already been in possession' V in factual report aaaa aubmittad by the tahsildar, possyeeeioa is protected pending' t aa a land tribunal in the and'=p6ssesion shall govern the uxuhunu, vIu.Lu.u u:uu.n.g suitable action depending on the order to A tribunal.
Iudge