Karnataka High Court
Sri Byre Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 September, 2013
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL NOS.4284-85/2012(LR)
BETWEEN :
1. Sri.Byre Gowda,
S/o.Byre Gowda,
Aged about 66 years,
2. Sri.Shivalinge Gowda,
S/o.Byre Gowda,
Aged about 64 years,
Both are residing at
# 174, Gerahalli Village,
Attihalli Post,
Sathanur Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagaram District. ...APPELLANTS
(By Sri.T.R.Subbanna, Sr.Adv. for
M/s.Sivan & Siva Associates, Advs.)
AND :
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Represented by its
Secretary.
-2-
2. Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal, M.S.Building,
Bangalore-560001
Rep. by its Registrar.
3. The Assistant Commissioner -
Authorised Officer,
Ramanagaram Sub-Division,
Ramanagaram.
4. Sri.K.G.Venkatappa,
S/o.Sri.K.G.Puttanna,
Aged about 67 years,
R/o.Hanumanahalli village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagaram District.
5. Sri.Chikke Gowda,
S/o.Chikke Gowda,
Aged about 67 years,
6. Sri.Dase gowda,
Since dead by L.Rs.,
(a) Varadaraju,
S/o.Dase Gowda,
Aged about 47 years,
7. Sri.Chere Gowda,
Mallaiah,
Since dead by L.Rs.
(a) Shivamallaiah,
S/o.Chere Gowda,
Aged about 60 years,
(b) Doddamallaiah,
S/o.Chere Gowda,
Aged about 67 years,
-3-
(c) Ramu,
S/o.Chere Gowda,
Aged about 41 years,
(d) Shivanna,
S/o.Chere Gowda,
Aged about 44 years,
All are residing at
Gerehalli village,
Sathanur Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagaram District. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.D.Vijaykumar, AGA for R-1, 2 & 3,
Sri.M.H.Prakash, Adv. for R-5, 6(A) & 7[a-d])
. . . .
These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set-aside the order
passed in the writ petition Nos.47344-45/2011 dated
25.06.2012.
These writ appeals coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which has set-aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
-4-
2. The material on record discloses that the land bearing Sy.No.71 measuring 4 acres 22 guntas situated at Hanumanahalli village, which was a Jodi Inam land was granted in favour of the father of the appellant by the Special Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 29.03.1962 under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. The case of the appellants is from the date of grant, their father was personally cultivating the land and after his death, they are cultivating the land. The Jodidar preferred an appeal against the said grant, which came to be dismissed on 16.12.1966. Thus, the grant in their favour attained finality.
3. The appellants filed Form No.7A on 30.04.1999 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the very same land. Thereafter, they filed an application for rectification of the survey numbers i.e., incorporating Sy.Nos. 67, 68 & 69 in place of Sy. No.71 in the order dated 29.03.1962. In the meanwhile, there was a survey -5- conducted in which, according to the appellants, it was found the land, which was granted to them on 29.03.1962 and which was in their occupation bears Sy. Nos. 67, 68 and 69 measuring 4 acres 25 guntas, 4 acres 25 guntas and 6 acres respectively. A sketch was also prepared. On the basis of the certified report, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application filed under Section 77A of the Land Reforms Act by his order dated 27.09.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents 5, 6 and 7 preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, set-aside the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition. It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed.
4. The entire discussion before the Authorities below proceeded on the question as to whether the land bearing Sy.Nos. 67, 68 and 69, which was granted to the respondents 5, 6 & 7 by the Land Reforms Tribunal -6- was valid with jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. They have also taken into consideration the survey conducted, the survey sketch, which according to the appellants show that they are in possession of a Land which was not granted to them under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act and thereafter, the impugned orders are passed.
5. The land in question is an agricultural land, which is not in dispute. Either the Land Tribunal or the Assistant Commissioner under Section 77A gets jurisdiction to entertain the application in Form No.7 or 7A only, if the land in dispute is a tenanted land, otherwise the said land do not vest with the Government and the authorities have no jurisdiction either to grant occupancy rights or re-grant the land under Section 77A. If on 29.03.1962, as claimed by the appellants, if the Land was granted to them under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act and when they were not tenants as on 01.03.1974, the question of vesting of the land would not arise, because already, they have been granted occupancy rights and they are -7- cultivating the land as owners. Section 77A was introduced to give an opportunity to the tenants, who have failed to make an application under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy rights, to get the land re-granted in their favour. It applies only in cases where there is no dispute regarding vesting and tenancy and the land granted under Section 77A is not grant of occupancy rights. Therefore, under the scheme of the Act when the appellants are not the tenants of the land in question as on 01.03.1974, on the contrary, they are claiming their right by virtue of a grant, neither the Assistant Commissioner nor the Land Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain the case. This has been completely missed by the authorities. Therefore, the appellants' application filed on 30.04.1999 in Form No.7-A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was misconceived and not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was fully without jurisdiction and it is rightly set-aside by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the learned -8- Single Judge was justified in not interfering with said order. There is no merit in this appeal. Appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS