Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Shri. Rama Reddy Since Deceased By His ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2013

Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale, B.Manohar

                             1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

           DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013

                            PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

                              AND

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR

                  W.A.NO.611/2012 (LR)

BETWEEN

1.   SHRI. RAMA REDDY
     SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

1(a) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE RAMA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

1(b) SMT. ARUNA
     D/O LATE RAMA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

1(c) SMT. YESHODA
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     D/O LATE RAMA REDDY,

1(d) SMT. PREMALATHA
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
     D/O LATE RAMA REDDY,

1(e) SMT. PAVITHRA
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     D/O LATE RAMA REDDY,
                               2


1(f) SHRI MANJUNATHA
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
     S/O LATE RAMA REDDY,


1(g) SMT. SHYLAJA
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     D/O LATE RAMA REDDY,

2.    SHRI CHIKKAMUNI REDDY
      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
      S/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY

      ALL APPELLANTS ARE
      R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE
      SARJAPURA HOBLI
      ANEKAL TALUK
      BANGALORE DISTRICT              ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI V VISWANATH, ADV.,)


AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REP. BY THE SECRETARY
      REVENUE DEPARTMENT
      MS BUILDING
      BANGALORE-560001

2.    THE LAND TRIBUNAL
      ANEKAL TALUK
      ANEKAL

3.    SHRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA
      S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
      MAJOR R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE
      SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
      BANGALORE DISTRICT
                             3


4.    SHRI CHANDRAPPA
      S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
      MAJOR R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE
      SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
      BANGALORE DISTRICT

5.    SHRI NAGAPPA
      S/O BALAPPA
      MAJOR R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE
      SARJAPURA HOBLI
      ANEKAL TALUK
      BANGALORE DISTRICT                 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R. OMKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2 & SRI K.S. MALLIKARJUNAIAH, ADV., FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 13113/10 DATED 23/11/11 THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, DILIP B. BHOSALE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PC:

I.A.Nos.1/12, 3/12, 4/12 and 5/12 are allowed, by consent.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.11.11 passed in W.P.13113/10 whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. The petition was directed against the order under Section 4 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") passed in favour of one Muniyappa, the father of respondents-3 and 4. The order was passed holding that Muniyappa was in possession and continuous occupation of Sy.No.200/1 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas. It appears that when the order was passed, it was Sy.No.200 only and not 200/1. Since then, respondent No.3 claims that, Respondents 3 and 4 are in possession of the said land by virtue of the order passed in favour of their father Muniyappa. The order passed under Section 48A of the Act was challenged by the appellants after the lapse of 30 years. They claim that they were not aware about the order. It is true that the appellants were not party to those proceedings, but it is not possible for us to accept their contention that they were not aware about the possession of respondent Nos.3 and 4 or their father on the basis of which, the order under Section 48A of the Act, dated 3.6.81 was passed. Even if it is assumed that the entries in the record of rights were effected on the basis of 5 the order dated 3.6.81 for the first time in 2009, it would not be possible for us to concede to the submission, since there is no dispute that initially Muniyappa and thereafter respondents-3 and 4 were cultivating the land in dispute. The documents produced on record clearly show that they were cultivating the land in dispute in 1988-89, 94-95, 95-96 and 96-97.

3. The learned Single Judge has considered the entire material on record in proper perspective and on the basis thereof, made the following observations in para-5 of the impugned order:

"Apparently, on the basis of the statement made by the Nagappa Kudlu, the landlord in the said proceedings occupancy rights have been granted. A perusal of the statement made by Nagappa Kudlu the landlord would clearly indicate that he admits the claim of the applicant to the effect that he was cultivating the land in question including Sy.No.200/1. Indeed, the petitioners cannot be heard to say after a lapse of 30 years that they were wholly unaware of the proceedings and they came to know only when an application is moved before the revenue authorities to change the name. Apparently, the subject matter of the application was an extent of 1 acre 15½ guntas in Sy.No.200/1.

Indeed, except the sale deed of the year 1909, there is nothing on record to show that it is the subject matter of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Indeed, the great grand father of the petitioners purchased a total extent of 2 acres 15 guntas on 16.8.1909. It is rather too late in the day to question the order passed by the Land Tribunal after lapse of 30 years, more so, having regard to the observations made thereof. Having said so, I am of the view that the question of interfering with the impugned order does not arise."

After having considered the reasons recorded by learned Single Judge and so also the materials placed on record, in our opinion, no case warranting interference in writ appeal is made out by the appellants. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.II/12 for stay also stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE TL