Papanna vs Smt Chitra Annaswamy on 13 August, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Papanna vs Smt Chitra Annaswamy on 13 August, 2008

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

-3,

2. W3. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd..
Represented by its
Estate Qificer,

HAL Post.
BANGALGRE-560 6? 'f.

fa)

The Land Tribuna¥
Bangaiore South Taaﬂk.
BANGALORE.

4. The Stata szf Karrsataka
Rep. by Secretary.
Revenue Bepartment,
Vidhana Sc:-udha,
BANGALGRE.

(By Sri. Sangamesh G. Patil,  -f'«:'>Vr  '~  
Sri.S.V.Shasiri.Aciv.f0f 92):.-W  =    '

 ﬁsspcsaaiaasxxrs

, ....g.. <

Th¥s LRRF' is fa!e+:i"'uf$»1213%?;>f__ﬁ:e"Kam'ataka Land Reforms. Act.
aga£nst the order~vdai~a»;§1V18.€32;19'89 «.pa"ssae.-dz in LRA No.1255i88 en the
me 3? the Lana:*efr3:ms'é§..;,~pe§!ate Autiicréty, Bangalore, d£$,mis5ing the
apgeal and%cenﬁrmAisai;g» ti%1e"«i*arcica;* pasaed by the Larici Tribunai, Baﬁgamre
South Taluka in' LRF.iN,§;'1.L185{?3-¢80_dated 13.1 1 .1986.

This Re~ié$i4<3r; .P§$iit§$n .ctsz§':§'E.:xg on for Diciaténg Orders. this day, the

Court made. the fo§ic~w§ng:7'

.     [s§2§9isic5[:; éirected against the order dated 1352:2959 in

   passed by the Land Reforms A;>pe%}ate Authoyiiy

V"'_1«:,,§t:;nﬁrm!:f'g <2-Vrder paased by the Land 'i':'ibu:2a!, Bangaiore South

L % _jffaiusé,ksangéiore in LRF.iMA_1185!?9-80 dated 1311,1986 and for
 ___"di§*e§§?;§o'r§"te the Land T:ibuna!. Bangalore Smzth Taiuk. Bangalore for

 A..__§c:nﬁrrnatien oz? the sscupancy rights in respect sf 1 acre 8 gurztas of

Eand in $y.!\!e.4?;"! 9? Kedmaiié viiiage, \!ar!hur Hebii, Bangabre Seuth
Taiuk. ﬁangaiore.



-3-

2. On 24.12.1974. mo deceased petitioner made an application
under Section 10 of the Mysore (Porsonnol and Miscenaaneousnnams
mama Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the  for

transfer of khata of Sy.No.47I1 of Kodihalii viiiago.Vvh:is::docoosed»

father's name to his name. in the said pfocoodinﬁ€.do¢oosesi  'V

made an application for implooding otio_:"'$mt.Ci:i%xVa'. 

daughter of A.M.Ramamuzthy. Jodidaz Kouihaaai 

3. The case of   'was that. the land
measuring 2 acres 2._gunta$.VV§$.:5r§V.hio.V'éhd enjoyment since
decades and  aioo.   been acquired and
compensation the deceased peﬁtionor
namely. ~V.:ofdor'._--"iV\io;LAC.8O!43-44 on 18.10.1946
and the roérzoinino AI_i3.bin it is also stated that. he
could not prefoi"aria;>pi*§cotioh"'oarﬁor for change of ichata since he was

i  -not more oodetaaisoeoae assets and liabilities of his father. When
 some   ﬁled ﬂue said application.

54. ansmon of his case. he had produced me for the year

'   19$-63 and 196364. Before the Special Deputy
A     Smtchitra Annaswamy. who was impieadod. did not
 V'   In View of the amendment to the provisions of me Karnataka
 iand Reforms Act in 1979. ail the appiieations. which were pending

before the Special Deputy Commissioner under inams Aboliﬁon Act.

'5>'/izﬂ

F3"  ., '



 

stood transferred to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal by its order
dated 30"' March 1982 rejected the claim of die peﬁtioner on tlieground
that the applicadon of the deceased petitioner has 
adjudicated and in view of the acquisition. the Khata is 
favour of H.A.L. As against the said rejeotioruihe   it it
had filed a writ petition before this   
12.9.1932 allowed w.P.No.17190I1982"ond rorrroncrocrﬁio are r A
Land Tribunal. After remand. ﬁre frivbunelhiby. Voider dated
28.4.1984 granted occupancy'i--.riahtsA--V_to{.ii're petitioner to an
extent of 1 acre 3 guntas. which   guntas later on
by order dated 2e,:i.ieje4ii As. .ogairist%io§:roeaioioroor, H.A.L. had filed
W.P.No.18296!1§8.4.5."_" was also allowed and the

mader was   Tribunal. On remand. the Land
Tribunal by  rejected the application of the

dweased_§petilioner."'  against the rejection. the dweased petitioner
  ooooo:ipir:.L.R.A.No.1255I1eee before the Land Reforms

Appellate Auorornyxerroro the Appellate Authority. both the parties led

x"V"additiona!_ eariderrce oral as well as documentary. Both of the

' " eiehibers oi  Appellate Authority differed in their opinion interalia, the

 Revenue fielember agreed to concur with are ﬁndings of the Land

.   whereas the Judicial Member differed with the findings of the

Land Tribunal. ln View of the conflicting opinion between both the

  members. matter was referred to the Principal City Civil Judge.

V



_ i:i':e Staiifé uciurirsg  a :1§ an area of 39 gamma (3? gurstas + 2

 jijancvi) was acquired fo: the benefst of the respondent -

_deceAa;~;-zeci p_et§t%:§é:é?'s famﬂy. Father ef the deceased petitiener had ﬂied gppyiséiigﬁ in 1953 and the saéd application was rejected witheut » _V father of the deceased petiﬁoner am in tum, an order was t by the Speciai Beputy Gemmissiener or: 13111958 interaifa, .4 .'§'m!éing that the entire farm of Sy.Ne.4? has beea acquéred for the Metropeiimn Ayea, Earzga!-we under Section 1188 of tba K_a_!_nataka Land Referrns Act. The ieamed Principai Céty CM! Juc§§%3'j<«!éy"«VVh§s Reference Order dateé 2%" January' was ire Ref.c;;é$§é' agreed with the View takers by the Rexfergua ,!_\?!4e:~:z1j;~ér;' 2333; erder 0? the Sgecia! Deputy Commiss:%r;ne:j"'ﬁ:§t$€§.._:£'§§;1§','€§'§§ become: ﬁnai. !r; View of the orr:£erw'4i_>i"«.tijge Fééféfénge v med by the deceased getiticrxer was ogder and the arder ef the Land Tribunal f:'ax{_e"':%?>ee2j czg1!e ¢aE4iVr:.q'a;:*.=>s!:ic2:'+: in this yevéaien.

5. During the 4;:én_den-:;?'éf i!*é§:s~.. §ro§:e§diﬁg.§§ béfere this com, the petitioner d%ed__.arsd_£_egai_: 2ie';:x2;fes$'n§$€§ves"'§1a*ze been breught on recegd.

6. »$:§.E£ha§<§§' f$f§e::§f;"--T.:!'éartaed Coarse; appeaying for the petitéeners subagitied fhaf; Afhreﬁeqéuisétion psoceedings were initiated i:>y cf the remaining Eand, remained with the benefit at H.A¥... He submitted that, as fegards to the acquisition of iand .7- claim grant of occupancy rights. tf the HAL has no jurisdiction to make an appiioation, any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner'»in this regard is void in the eye of law and it becomes _LHe further submitted that. the orders passed by the in 1958. one rejecﬁna the claim of the deceased tether it it petitioner and also another holding that land. boﬂt are violative of zartncirttteeitzsf» natttral. one passedwithoutjurisdiction.

8. In this regard. he _retied >feevelra'i'b~1'.ctet§ieions to contend that. if the order' iaone an order is passed without compt;?ind::."'* tv3't'Gef.': or Add Altoram Partem. such orders and they need not be consideredxand the Appeliate Authority as wet! as the Land Tstlotrnavii the application of the deceased ' on .tlte4.'eele_'grount:l earlier the Deputy Commissioner in yeetitese j"h.._a_s eeeee the application' med by the deceased eeeteeeet peﬁtioner. He submitted that. tr the orders are such orders are not binding on the Tribunal it iahot precluded from conetderinc me application of the ' her. He ateo submitted ttmt. when an aeplicamt is to: grant of occupancy riahb wet! within the time stipulated % the provisions of the Act and if any other order is passed eariier. duty is cast on the tribute: to club both the apptications and /2"

I' »;' K \ Ana 19g:_3sc.344' its 25;; Enatvtier of auto»: OF INQIA AND ANOTHER - VLALLA ans! submitted that. an order found to be nun §_udgrr§er3_t re_;3€:rtvéﬁATin iLR 2000 KAR 1929 in the matter of UNKVED % ::qL>;m~su£%é:aNc£ co.z.m. --vs- RAJ:-::vmA smeu AND OTHERS _4 su,%>é*£Eﬁed that. the Courts and the Tribunais have power to :'eca!i its V ' if they are found te be wangked wiéh fraud. He reﬁed on another .4_4'4f§ec§sion reperted in !LR 19?"? KAR ?00 in the mafter of -2- pass approgriate order. Wéﬁhout doing so. the Tribunal as '~::e!_!_ as the Appeiiate Authority have faﬁed to exercése jurisdiction vested _

9. in support of his contentions, he reiied en a ' in MR 1954 so 340 in 'me matter of K!RA9J.S!£SJGH A1v£2€2rH£9Rs V--=5-" ' CHAMAN PA-SWAN AND orrasszs am s;.;;::%ns£te:.i %t5az.&%% famdamentai principie that a decree'§_>as§edV'§y 'é * iurisdictiers is a nuﬂity and that its s;gu!e'#i'béV:s.'§t whenever and wherever it is sought tcé -a'n:'FV§A:2rc;.Ai:{ 'e--r_'L»rZé}ia§ upoﬂexzen at the stage of execution and evenA...in _c¢!!a §e:§gi "ﬁr-:'::iéé.¥;:4i*E:gs. A defect of jurisdictien. whgvihér..__it7§s';'--_Vpéc£;n§é:yV cs? 'igyrittarial. or whether it is in respect of the+.5u_t$§e~¢f ﬁiagtar a"<:':itT:.-n,_ Strikes at the very authority 9'? the Gear: tijpass .st2s:§1 a defe¢t cannet be cured even by consent <>f"p§rEies{'HéAVAa!s'§"'*.:§4!iéd on anoiher decisien reported in and acid is" have never been existed. He also relied on a MUNIYELLAPPA --vs- B.M.f<F€!SHNAMURTHY 8: OTHERS and submitted mat. any order passed in vioiation cf sbréncinies 9? Audi _§ rf'/'r '?:'c~t_Ac<>ra%é§5é:Eer;j.':2§ the mé§eria£------9n!y on the ground that the amzlécation med .b3;_thé'T<§e¢ea§e%,i'=§§i?:¢r of the deceased petitioner is. regected in the ' " eariééa". p¥z5ceeé§ré;§3.'T1' that the éeceased yetitierzer has not ﬁﬁed appiication gfant of occupancy ﬁghts Linda: Sectien 19 cf the Act. the appiicaticn V one for transfer cf khata and such an appiicaiien is not maintainabée Aimram Partem is nukity and it is unenfoarceabie. Reiying :>r_z__ theee decéséons, he further submitted ihat, the order passed in %958_4vbé_,ih'g e;>:§e withoaﬁ juriséiction being nuiiéty in iaw. it cannot be cannot be enfoyced against the petiticner. }A-Alba» also = deceased petitioner is a tenant and t?2ié___is fafc,>.§*é produced by him before the Tribunai' a._I_'_1d referred t9 the order passed by $5 ;éi§e£EVVVas the Appetiate Authority and :4€§.;;;§€§%ate and the Law Tribunai have ncticed in favour of the deceased :.'>etits*one:§~va1:i;$_have::A_a!s;:§,§h§!énd acquiied by the Gevemment for" <:.{{:iy'39 guntas. despite the admissien L§z:nﬁ§'_'Yr§§§éﬁé£ has erreneomdy rejected the appiicatiers the He further submitted that. the Appellate' AutheLr%i§'.V_§:>af9%~e 'é;hi£:'§iLV§he adzﬁtional evidence was $95!. has £0. '$§§A.'$.V.Shastry. Seamed Counse! for the respendent N92 -

under the previsions 9!' Section 10 of the Act. He wbmiited that. as against the arder passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 13.11.1958.

.§{)..

an appeal was ﬁled before me Kamataica Appellate Tribune! Appoai Nos. 16111989 and 34/1990. both the appeals weio the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by order dated 11"' against which two writ poﬁtions were ﬁled inliL~i;r%.Na%.s;34ieo% 841 711991 and both the writ peﬁtions on 1 Ho submitted that in 1953 considered me application ﬂied by deceased father of the docoaaod aioplication was rejected by the Deputy ﬁled under Section 10 is m.~§eLk for the Deputy Commissioner; under the same provision iniemi The present application filed by the iinder Section 19 of the Act. He submitted ih'ai. % iris ihe deceased petitioner is claiming right the claim made by his deceased rather. If fatiior application. it is not open to the petitioner to make the same relief. He further submiﬁed that. in 1953 of me land was handed over to the H.A.L. ii.A.i..iiias been in pomession oi the said land since then. He X oiiomim that. the H.A.L. had made an applicaﬁon under Section A ll the Act for grant of the occupancy right and accordingly. the V Deputy Commissioner had passed an order on 13.11.1958 in favour of mo H.A.L. and the said ordor has also ruched ﬁnality in View of the l 4;-

d§smissaloa'tl1eappea!ﬁledataba|atedstageby{he§_!oceasad petitioner herein. As regards to the cultivation by the" is concerned, he submitted that the relevant records snowgawa' name of the H.A.L.. and further submitted mat 91% petitioner is not maintainabie. He ._that>H:?g§L:;"VVVi§:«in 1 A pom ' noftheiandinquestion. %

11. in the light of the ma: mt arisx for consideration in this Revisiori.'

1) Mme: the couid be tgnonsd at ofﬁrrla, an 9§9. 9v'.bund of want of

12. iﬁ, d§spu*.sv£are. the deceased petitioners father ftadamaada an % Section so of the Act iniaralia. claiming the of It is necessary to refer to me vprovBi9r_iA$ 1&0; cram Act. which reads as under:

% « F10. ofclaims undersecﬁons 4.5.6.728 and 9 - (iﬁvfiag afreﬂexamimﬁaenaatraurdtﬁsioryofaﬁ . £a_ndsv5ri":'aa;spe:e£'bfwhicha kadm tanmt a pamananttonant, 'a'q wmmmmwrdawmmmwa irswanx1;§r'c£&lmsaobemgIsmadasoooupamundarsecﬁans V 4.5.6.7«gnd9or#:eho£1arofanrinorér1amchimstobo niTagtLsiwadaahok1w"u:rwrsactrbn8,as£hecaaemeybe, fﬂdacidainmspectdwﬁchhtidsﬂleolalmssfioukibe (2)Aimantfourx:ibbeinpossessionofanylandonthoﬁrst dayamuty, 1948,ahe#bep:aownodtobeaqwaeJ-

parmaraanttenantasdwmdfn clause (14) ofsub-secabnﬁ) dseaﬁortzwrlassﬁwirzanawrpaowstimtswhwmntﬁsmt aquasi-%rrttasrza:atasds':?11ed:'ncIause(14)ofsab- seciion(1)ofsacﬁon2.

K2.

fag» 4/v-

-;g-

Prcvidea' that 5:: the case of a tenant in minor imam such presumprion she}! be raxﬁsed if such tenant is found to ix:

in possession of any iano' on five 1" day of Juiy 'I9?0. T {3}(a) No person shall be enﬁtled to be r.- A4 an occupant under Secizbns 4, 5, 6, 7' and 9 unless the iciaimant" . V' makes an application to the Tribunal.

she}! be made,- ---

{Q in nespect cf lands in inéms ._whi<:h hgye. vesteﬁ « . V -- ﬁn the State befora? the ciafe cf commencement of the Kamataka scams Abioiftioa {Af?}e!?._£_1!'§?3!T£3 Act 19%' within six "ysars ffom dz-gqfé af commencement ¢_f...fbe. _ said Amanqnaerit Act £37 respect of iand-sﬁfn ifnamsvzkgabicb vest in the Sfafe on Vor""aff§zr ﬁ:*e"»_{;c:!?7_tnaeIr3z§errreni of the _£{z-smafsaka, Inams: Aaoiiﬁeg Laws {Amendmenﬂ H }§ct.;--'i'9?3 'iaafifain three yearyfmm the dafe of v_'e?sfii'rg?'..__ of-Qthé. _ i.'7a7m xionoemed or 315' ., Decgamber 419?? whichegier is fate! f-ii) (£3) where no ap,oiéic4§a'ig3:;..§$";nade within the period specﬁed in ciausew-(aj, fhe5*.=n'gii7t of éxzy perscm fa be regisferxad as an cccsgzant shall' .3t,a;',:.§ extir.rg:Ji.s!2ec! am the land .shaIi vest in Sfate abscsizzteiy,' .'§i.£(";'?7 (and sfraii be disposed ca! fr:

a£:;;_b:3ngfance with we--raiies relating to grant of fands.

{tr} V me' pfwisicsns cf secfions 48-A. 48-6 and :'?2 of the . Kamatafeg £A'm"'Refanns A51', 198? and ﬁve reievanf ruies imreander shat! migtaffs mutandsls apply in an éiaqzﬁty fc:-.:f .::39z'9rm:'i:afian af 3 ciaim under this mt-c+t:'¢r: 5 and the detzisrbn of the Tribunal aha}! be ﬁnaf, "

L'?-Q confers right 9:': the kadim tenant, permanent tenant. quasi- __'pérrr§a,nér§At tenant, hoider of minor mam 9!' irzamdar 29 make an . ' A "a:,§%;$!§£$ation for grant sf occupancy righa to register them 33 an oaccupant the lands. In this case, the appiicaiiers ﬁled by the father cf the deceased petitioner is reéescted an 13.11.1958 is not in dispute 3216 it is Every s:1c!:.a,ofp!ica£ionA "

-13.

also not in dispute that. the said order was not challenged ﬁll It is only in 1939. appeals were mod in Appeal Nos.161/1989 before the Kamataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 11"' August has appeals and against which writ petitions peﬁtioner in W.P.Nos.8416 and 8.41?(1991"a_ll&£ tooooosl were dismissed for doroull on s.1.l9e7. no that. the orders passed by the .1953 mow the finamy, if on one hand, the 10 has rmched ﬁnality. the of H10 wtate of the deceased :aoor.rll claim and claiming only as a for the same retief.

Assuminator was passed without hearing the petitioner's faﬁwl; ttl:et.'1trc1;lldt'::,'tiave been a ground available for the .. said order and in this use. it is found that eaatd erd>:er.waAc§;*'~ctl'atIenged and has been conﬁmled by the Appellate moooolooolootoo Court in writ moon' . ln View of the same. in Vt my net be proper to go into the question. whether the oloor on 13.11.1953 was withjurisdictien or without jurisdiction.

V 13. After Seyears. Et would not be propertosettheclock to consider as to whether mo order of 1958 was one with jurisdiction or without jurisdiction, which has survived and is confirmed K3 fox xv M 'order. only in 19S§.'vit...rras sought to be challenged. however. the V the ot<ixer~vrtato€i'é--t',3'__J3l3958 has been conﬁrmed.

Aioiéciigletteariier between the parties. same is binding on the parties . ' I arfrd Ar-ruooossor in interest. in this case. the father of the deceased it ' 'ﬁe.-$:ti?Vtior2er heroin having suffered the said order. petitioner as a sorr being oucoessor in interest, he is hound by the said ordain in my view. the ..}.ef...

tzy the iudiciai orders. in the light of the eariier order dated t3.1..j_r1958. now it is not open to hold that the said order is not oporativo:'or"ttoid order. Or: consioeration of evidence, both Tribunai Appellate Authority have found that, the a_9piioatiorr'of' * not rnaintairiabie. It is also found that, thé=._r1anfl-o3:¥=f column No.9 of record of rights, Tiiezere ﬁoéiirigo order passed by the Deputy Commissioneririatovd 33.1 Qﬁoviraovfboen given effect to, and if that is given ._;;orirrot be rirroottied at this stage. No doubt, the order and it can be questioned even in 33 '£JA?'ii'3£eraii._ the same time. lapse of time is aiso réquired to be considered, The gap botérréén' byttiéiivaﬂoputy Commissioner and the order cl3alio:%rg;éd.'_ the said order was in force for nearly 40 _yearo."*4r'£eithorj_pé'£itio's=ér nor his father challenged the said Vérzipeérl' and ﬁled by the petitioner have been dismissed and

14. lfiarr issue as rogarci to the grant of occupancy rights has then the: 'said orcieri is required 29 be recaiieci and bath the applications are raqiiireiriisc iiegensidered together. that applies in a case the order is petitiérigr hvas riéézdé an agspiication, he sheuiai mt be denied of his right " in thiérégard, the ﬂour! has heir! that such agpiicatiori be ciubioed.

B-iii sf reiection cf appiicaticn ﬂied by the father. 39:: can get right anether ap;2«!ication_ -35- second appiicatien was rightiy reiected by the Tribunai __as not mairatainabie. V

15. The question. as to whether the order passgdiiﬂr Deputy Commissioner is one without hearingihe father or not, is not the question. which c:o;ild:1b-5.,Qﬁrseiiiﬁié'-rit V'3.'Vf:i'§rS'_3'V'A§:E:{C.-t.'«':§9 in these proceedings. Adrriittediy. théag aréi ; the basis of the appiication ﬂied by !:?iueHi'ci.§.'._cz':_:';Vseci"peiiiifirrieriiiierein and if the material preciuced by suﬁii application has already been reigcted, igri~;§i$§r\',/;?§3§;~;red to Q9 into the question as to whsihéi§;1Tii'ﬁe i".e:,5--€;f€t§f.'>ii'.i';'=e*a'é€~".':iii'§";'iV*!"i." ériilrong: the Tribunal was eniy to cansideir, wiie€h'ér'iheiséiteirzd.:a,eb'Eicaticn is maintairiabie 9! riot.

The contés}tio.;:-- of 'ii.:Ve.._v!'éarrie{i'Qeuhsei for the petitioner that, if an appiicaticn is 'made by tiieigzeiiiisréér, if there is aiready an eariier order.

third party aimiisatien and sazbseqiieniiy. the

16. Even assuming that. the Special Beauty Commissioner has granted the iarid :9 the i-i.i1..L.. witheut there being right. hewearer. ihe .35.

said order also stood the test of the scrutiny of the judicial proceedings by way of appwl and writ petiﬁen and has been upheldj.said proceedings. lfthat is so. it would not be correct for tliis the validity of the same order once again, These _ considered as appeal against the earlier A. 3

17. since i have taken a viewl.ﬁ1atV'ﬂ1e lapi>tlii:atuien'lll5iI; tiis~i>étitioner' itself is not maintairiable in law. it _is"fnet a9cessary io into cine:

questions raised by me principle that. an order passed willioutV.notice:_er«in of Audi Alteram Pattern or is not required to be considered as mass; argument was available to am petitioner in the eariier 'l r having lost the same. he is atopped fl'€ll'i'l.__ rai_siri'a_ of validity or the order dated __.13.11.',1fl558oncea§g'sin.vl Q in .l ﬂie above. the father crthe petitioner during his life arise hed«ln6i:llsﬁre_nl~i3tiesﬁened the said order. i do not think there is any _justiﬁr:stionv~..'t:e rsbensider the said contention. if lhet is so. the present l H by the petitioner for the same relief. in my opinion. is not % l and both the Land Tribunal as well as the Land Reforms _ ':'_4'i9.i:ir:sllate Authority have rightly held that the application is not linainiainabie and have minced the same. I concur with the findings or the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority. i ¥'-'cur the reascns stated above, the Revision Petition 'f_a§'§s and same is dismissed.

K!\.!i\2¥!~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court