Karnataka High Court
Sri Kg Chandru vs The Deputy Commissioner on 17 November, 2015
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO. 28490 OF 2015
C/W WP NO. 15094 OF 2015(KLR-RES)
IN WP. NO. 28490 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.G CHANDRU
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
S/O K.G. PUTTANNA,
R/AT HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. H.C. SHIVARAMU ADV., A/W SRI. S RAJU, ADV., )
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA 571511.
2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGA SUB-DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA - 571511.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
KANAKAPURA 562117
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
KASABA HOBLI,
2
KANAKAPURA TALUK 562 511
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
5. SRI. VALASALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O LATE KARIYAIAH,
R/AT HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK- 562511,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. H. VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADV., FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD:17.03.2015 IN REVISION
PETITION NO.12/2013-14 PASSED BY THE R-1 - DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION, SO FAR AS ONLY
REMANDING THE MATTER FOR FRESH ENQUIRY TO THE
R-2 - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB -
DIVISION, RAMANAGARA & ETC.,
IN WP NO. 15094 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. VALASALAIAH
S/O. LATE KARIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT. HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADV.,)
3
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 511.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA- 571 511.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
KANAKAPURA - 562 117.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
KASABA HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK
KANAKAPURA - 562 117.
5. SRI. K.G CHANDRU
S/O.SRI.K.G.PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT. HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. H. VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADV., A/W
SRI. S. RAJU, ADV., FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.17.3.2015 IN CASE
NO.REVISION PETITION NO.12/2013-14 PASSED BY THE
R-1 AS PER ANNX-H AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN RA(LKC) 561/2011-
12 & ETC.,
4
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
On 02.11.2015, the following order was passed:
"Sri.Ganapati Bhat, learned counsel takes notice for respondent No.5 in W.P. 28490/2015, since he has appeared for the very same respondent, who is party petitioner in connected writ petition calling in question the very same order in this petition.
Petitioner in W.P.15094/2015 made an application in Form No.7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 to be registered as an occupant of land measuring 5 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.11 of Hanumanahalli village, Kanakapura taluk, amongst other lands, registered as LRF(H) 4/76-77 before the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura taluk arraigning petitioner in W.P.28490/2015 as the landlord. In that proceeding, the tenant was recognized as the cultivator of the land in question on the appointed date and the lands having vested in the State under Section 45 of the Act, by 0rder dated 15.10.1981, application was allowed and 5 the applicant-tenant was registered as an occupant of the said land. Sequentially the Prescribed officer under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, on the basis of the order of the Land Tribunal, recorded the name of the tenant in the revenue records in MR No.8/83-84 dated 15.12.1981.
It appears that the tenant (W.P.No.15094/2015) made an affidavit to the Tahsildar stating that he was in possession of only 3 acres of land in Sy.No.106 and not in Sy.No.11.
At this stage Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord submits that the Land Tribunal later on modified its order on 28.2.1989 stating that the tenant was in occupation of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.106 only and not 5 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.11 hence, the tenant is bound by that order.
Learned counsel for the tenant vehemently opposes the submission stating that he has no knowledge of the said order nor was that order subject matter of pleadings in the proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy 6 Commissioner, muchless in O.S. 704/2014 or O.S.374/2007.
In that view of the matter, parties to place on record certified copies of the proceedings including their pleadings in all the proceedings. Learned Govt. Advocate to secure the records including the orders passed by the Land Tribunal in LRF(H) 5/76-77 dated 15.10.1981 and 28.2.1989.
Re-list on 17.11.2015."
2. Today, learned Government Advocate makes available for scrutiny of the Court, the records of the Land Tribunal, Hanumanahalli, Kanakapura Taluk, in case No.LRF(H) 5/1976-77 relating to 5 acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.11 of Hanumanahalli between Sri Valasalaiah and Sri K.G.Chandru/petitioner, wherein the order dated 15.10.1981 discloses registration of occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land in favour of Valasalaiah, the tenant of the land on the date of vesting.
7
3. Although a freverent submission is made by Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel for Sri K.G.Chandru/ petitioner, that there is an order dated 28.02.1989 of the Land Tribunal modifying the order dated 15.10.1981, however on a perusal of the records, no such order is forthcoming. Learned counsel is unable to point out to the existence of such an order of modification of the Land Tribunal.
4. In the absence of an order modifying the order dated 15.10.1981 of the Land Tribunal, it is too farfetched for the petitioner to contend that certain extent of land was hived off and held to be not tenanted and belongs to the owner/ K.G.Chandru. The submission of Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel that issue of Form 10 over an extent of 3 acres only instead of 3 acres 28 guntas is noticed only to be rejected, having regard to the records of the Land Tribunal indicating that Form 10 is issued in favour of the tenant Valasalaiah over an extent of 5 acres 28 guntas in 8 Sy.No.11 assessed at Rs.7.53 and the premium calculated at Rs.1,506/-.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that there have been several civil suits between the parties by which there was reduction in the extent of land of which occupancy rights was granted to the tenant, is of no consequence, in the light of the order dated 15.10.1981 of the Land Tribunal. It is open for the land lord to question the order of the Land Tribunal, if law permits and if so advised.
6. In that view of the matter, WP No.28490/2015 must fail. Petition is dismissed.
7. As regards W.P.No.15094/2015 filed by the tenant calling in question the order dated 17th March 2015 of the Deputy Commissioner allowing the Revision Petition to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and remit the proceeding to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry based on the decision of the Civil 9 Court, calls for interference. In the circumstances W.P.No.15094/2015 is allowed. Order of the Deputy Commissioner is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm