Karnataka High Court
Jana Jagruthi Samithi (R) vs State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB
WP No. 13178 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 13178 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. JANA JAGRUTHI SAMITHI (R),
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT, 1960,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI K. GANESH,
S/O K. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF No.4511,
AMBEDKAR CIRCLE,
Digitally signed (NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE),
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU GANGAVATHI-583227,
Location: High KOPPAL DISTRICT,
Court of
Karnataka MOBILE No.-9448633906,
AADHAR No.611453725700,
PAN No.BSQPG 0646F,
EMAIL ID - [email protected].
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB
WP No. 13178 of 2022
M. S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560001.
4. TAHASILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560001.
5. K. S. GIRIDHAR,
S/O K L SWAMY,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT No.54, KANNAYAKANA AGRAHARA,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI H.V. SHYAMEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/02/2021 IN RA(S)
No. 46/2020-21 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/03/201 IN RS(s) No.229/2021
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3 ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-H1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB
WP No. 13178 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) This public interest litigation by the petitioner-Association is stated to be filed to protect the public interest. It is stated that the petitioner Association has no personal interest in the subject of this petition. It is stated that the petitioner, while attending revenue Courts, noticed that the Assistant Commissioner, with mala fide intention and to help respondent No.5, claiming to be a subsequent purchaser, had passed an order detrimental to the general public interest. It is stated that as a result of the illegal action of respondent No.3, the property vested with the Government under the order dated 03.03.1997 has been given up in favour of respondent No.5 by the unsustainable order dated 25.02.2021, which is without jurisdiction.
2. It is submitted that the writ petition is by the petitioner- Association registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. This petition seeks to challenge and quash the order passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, dated -4- NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB WP No. 13178 of 2022 25.02.2021 in RA(S) No.46/2020-21 and order dated 30.03.2021 in RS(S) No.229/2021.
3. The brief facts giving raise to this public interest litigation are, 3.1 One Smt.Sangamma Patil, W/o Chandrashekar Patil, purchased land bearing Sy.Nos.6 and 7, measuring 15 Acres, and 19 Guntas, situated at Vaddarapalya, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
3.2 It is stated that Smt.Sangamma Patil sold the said lands through the registered sale deeds dated 04.05.1989 and 18.05.1989 in favour of respondent No.5.
3.3 The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, initiated action against the said lands for violating Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLR Act'). Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner by order dated 03.03.1997 concluded that the purchaser Smt. Sangamma Patil was not an agriculturist before 01.03.1974 and has failed to prove that the income is less than Rs.50,000/- as required under Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act. For the above violation, respondent -5- NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB WP No. 13178 of 2022 No.3-Assistant Commissioner, passed an order to forfeit the land in favour of the Government.
3.4 It is stated in the petition that respondent No.5 filed an appeal under Section 136(2) read with Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, challenging the suo motu order dated 03.03.1997. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, considering that respondent No.5 has purchased the said lands from Smt. Sangamma Patil under registered sale deeds dated 04.05.1989 and 18.05.1989, and the proceedings concluded in the order dated 03.03.1997 were behind his back and set aside the order. It is further stated that the order dated 03.03.1997 without impleading respondent No.5 violated the principles of natural justice. Respondent No.3, taking into consideration the omission of Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act by notification dated 02.11.2020, directed to remove the entry of the subject land as "Sarakari" from revenue records.
3.5 After the order of respondent No.3 dated 25.02.2021, Smt.Sunitha A Patil stating that she is the daughter-in-law of deceased Smt.Sangamma Patil, filed Writ Petition No.7406 of 2021 challenging the order of forfeiture dated 03.03.1997 passed by the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB WP No. 13178 of 2022 Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Division. Learned Single Judge by order dated 01.09.2022 set aside the order dated 03.03.1997 and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the case, including the effect of amendment brought to the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56/2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when an order for forfeiture was passed in terms of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the KLR Act in the order dated 03.03.1997 by the Assistant Commissioner, it is not open for the Assistant Commissioner to sit in appeal against his order and pass order dated 25.02.2021 directing to remove the entry "Sarakari" in respect of the lands in question. It is submitted that respondent No.5, though he purchased the subject properties through registered sale deeds dated 04.05.1989 and 18.05.1989, the revenue entries were not changed in his name, as the purchase was in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act, which was in force as on 1989. It is contended that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is with mala fide intention and to favour respondent No.5. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB WP No. 13178 of 2022
5. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.N. Phanindra, appearing for respondent No.5, submits that the order dated 03.03.1997 was passed considering the purchase of land in question by Smt.Sangamma Patil. Whereas, as on 03.03.1997, the lands were purchased by respondent No.5 during the year 1989 itself. The order dated 03.03.1997 was in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in entertaining the appeal and passing the order dated 25.02.2021. It is further submitted that in view of the omission of Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act with effect from 01.03.1974, the order dated 03.03.1997 is not sustainable. The order dated 25.02.2021 complies with the amendment to Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act.
6. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that Smt.Sunitha A Patil, daughter-in-law of deceased Smt. Sangamma Patil the vendor of respondent No.5 challenged the order dated 03.03.1997 passed by respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.7406 of 2021. Learned Single Judge by order dated 01.09.2022 has set aside the order dated 03.03.1997 passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and remitted the matter to the Assistant -8- NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB WP No. 13178 of 2022 Commissioner for fresh consideration by taking note of amendment brought to the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act. In view of the order of learned Single Judge, the order dated 03.03.1997 does not exist. Hence, the grievance raised by the petitioner does not survive for consideration.
7. Sri Kiran learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant submits that the applicant is the necessary party to the present proceedings as the petition's outcome would affect the applicant's rights. In support of the above contention, it is submitted that the applicant is claiming rights under Smt. Sangamma Patil, who acquired rights in the property in question through a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1995. It is stated that Smt. Sangamma Patil sold the said land in favour of respondent No.5 under registered sale deeds dated 04.05.1989 and 18.05.1989. These sale deeds were the subject matter of proceedings under Section 79A, 79B and 80 of the KLR Act. The order forfeiting the lands by the Assistant Commissioner under order dated 03.03.1997 was set aside at the instance of the applicant in Writ Petition No.7406 of 2021 dated 01.09.2022. It is submitted that in the interregnum, the revenue entries were changed. Further, it is submitted that BDA -9- NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB WP No. 13178 of 2022 has acquired the lands in question. With the above submissions, he contends that the applicant has a right in the property in question and is a necessary party to the proceedings. Analysis
8. One Smt. Sangamma Patil purchased the land bearing Sy.Nos.6 and 7 measuring 15 acres 19 guntas situated at Vaddarapalya, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, under registered sale deed dated 20.01.1975. Smt. Sangamma Patil sold the lands in Sy.Nos.6 and 7 in favour of respondent No.5 through sale deeds dated 04.05.1989 and 18.05.1989.
9. The respondent No.4 -Tahsildar recommended respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner for further action under Sections 79A and 79B of KLR Act on purchase of land bearing Sy.Nos.6 and 7 by Smt. Sangamma Patil under registered sale deed dated 20.01.1975. In compliance of the notice, Smt. Sangamma Patil appeared through an advocate and contended that provisions of Sections 79A and 79B are not attracted. It was further claimed that she is an agriculturist. Respondent No.4 concluded that Smt. Sangamma Patil has failed to prove that her income is less than Rs.50,000/- and she was an agriculturist prior to 01.03.1974.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB WP No. 13178 of 2022 Respondent No.4 held that the purchase under the sale deed dated 20.01.1975 violates Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act. Accordingly, forfeited the land in question.
10. The proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice dated 06.06.1998. As on the date of initiation of proceedings, Smt. Sangamma Patil has executed registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.5, transferring the land in question. The sale deeds were dated 04.05.1989 and 18.05.1989. In the proceedings initiated by respondent No.4 under notice dated 06.06.1996, respondent No.5 the purchaser was not issued any notice. The order declaring that the transfer is in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act without providing an opportunity to respondent No.5 having interest in the land in question, is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
11. Respondent No.5 invoked remedy under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and preferred appeal before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 noticing that Smt. Sangamma Patil has sold the property in favour of respondent No.5 under sale deeds dated 04.05.1989 and 18.05.1989, and mutation has been changed under M.R. No.3/89-90 held that respondent No.5 was
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB WP No. 13178 of 2022 necessary party. It is further held that an order dated 03.03.1977 vesting the land with the Government without giving an opportunity to respondent No.5 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further held that revenue entries have been changed to "Sarkari" without following the procedure. Respondent No.4 further held that Respondent No.5 is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land. After taking note of the amendment to Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act, allowed the appeal and directed to mutate the name of respondent No.5 against entry "Sarakari" in respect of the lands in question.
12. In the meantime, Smt. Sunitha A Patil/impleading applicant preferred Writ Petition No.7406 of 2021 challenging the order dated 03.03.1997. This Court set aside the order dated 03.03.1997 and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to re-consider.
13. The present public interest litigation is preferred during the pendency of the above writ petition. The present petition seeks to challenge the order passed by respondent No.4 dated 25.02.2021 relating to Sy.No.6 and the order dated 30.03.2021 about Sy. No.7. The subject matter of appeals before respondent No.4 was an order dated 03.03.1997. The order dated 03.03.1997 is set aside
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB WP No. 13178 of 2022 in Writ Petition No.7406/2021. In view of the order dated 03.03.1997 being set aside and remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, i.e. respondent No.3, the order dated 25.02.2021 has lost its effect in law.
14. It is a trite law that the Court refrains from deciding academic issues. The correctness or otherwise of the order dated 25.02.2021 would not survive for consideration given the order dated 03.03.1997 is set aside by learned Single Judge. The grievances raised by the public interest petitioner and the impleading applicant are also open in the pending proceedings before respondent No.4.
15. Having regard to the developments after presenting this petition, the prayers or the cause of action stated to exist do not survive for consideration. Further consideration of the matter with the peculiar fact situation would lead to academic exercise, which this Court is not inclined to.
16. The impleading applicant has pleaded various averments in the affidavit supporting the application. The pleadings directly relate to agitating the individual rights in the lands in question. At
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31848-DB WP No. 13178 of 2022 no stretch of the imagination, the rights attempted to be agitated through impleading application can be considered in the public interest petition. The impleading applicant has a different forum to agitate her rights in accordance with law. Accordingly, I.A. 1 of 2024 is rejected.
17. In the backdrop of the above findings, the petition does not survive consideration. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with the limited observation that the parties are at liberty to put forth their case in the pending proceedings before respondent No.4 in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15