Karnataka High Court
M Chandrashekar Bhat vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P. NO.18361/2018 (LR-RES)
BETWEEN:
M. CHANDRASHEKAR BHAT
S/O LATE SUBBARAYA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A 559/22, 5TH BLOCK
SIR. M. VISHWESHWARAIAH
LAYOUT, ULLALU UPANAGARA
BANGALORE PIN - 560 056.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKAS M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION
TUMKUR - 572 130.
3. OMPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O LADHURAMJI.
4. GANESH RAM
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O GISARAMJI.
BOTH RESP. NO.3 AND 4
ARE R/A YADIYUR VILLAGE
YADIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL
2
TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT
PIN - 572 130.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2;
SMT. SREEDEVI K.B, ADVOCATE FOR FR-3 & R-4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED:31.10.2017 IN APPEAL
NO.971/2009 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Vikas M, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner, Smt.H.C.Kavitha, learned HCGP appearing for respondents-1 and 2 and Smt.Sreedevi K.B., learned Advocate appearing for respondents-3 &
4. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement of sale on 14.12.2006 with the original owner namely, one Sri N Manjunath to purchase properties bearing Sy.Nos. 43/1, 43/2 to an extent of 6 acre 15 guntas and Sy.No.73/2 to an extent of 2 3 acres. However, said properties are said to have been sold by Sri N Manjunath in favour of respondents-3 and 4 on 16.05.2008 under a registered sale deed dated 12.10.2007. Hence, petitioner lodged a complaint before second respondent alleging that there was violation of Section 79A and 79B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'Act') namely, purchasers of land in question namely, respondents-3 & 4 are businessmen and not agriculturists by profession. Said complaint which came to be lodged on 19.05.2008 resulted in proceedings being initiated against respondents-3 & 4 in LRF (79 A 79 B). CR.75/08-09 and Assistant Commissioner - second respondent by order dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure-C) held that there was violation of Section 79(A) & (B) of the Act and ordered for forfeiture of said lands to the appropriate Government.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondents-3 and 4 filed an appeal bearing No. 4 971/2009 (Revenue) before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and appellate tribunal by order dated 31.07.2017 (Annexure- A) has set aside the order passed by second respondent. Hence, this writ petition by petitioner who is an agreement holder.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police alleging that vendor of respondents-3 and 4 had cheated him to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs and said complaint having been registered as FIR, investigation came to be held and charge sheet has been filed in CC No.556/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 & 420 IPC and findings recorded by tribunal would come in the way of petitioner pursuing his grievance against vendor of respondents-3 & 4. Hence, assailing the impugned order and contending that jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had recorded a finding of fact that records produced by respondents-3 and 4 had been fabricated which finding has not been disturbed by 5 the appellate tribunal and yet, order of Assistant Commissioner has been set aside which is based on an erroneous finding. He would also assail the finding recorded by the appellate tribunal that proceedings initiated against respondents-3 and 4 being beyond one year is not reasonable time and no such contention having been raised before second respondent, said finding was not called for. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the impugned order.
5. Per contra, Smt. Sreedevi, learned Advocate appearing for respondents-3 & 4 would support the order passed by the appellate tribunal and contend that petitioner being an agreement holder has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. Hence, she prays for dismissal of writ petition.
6. Smt. Kavitha H.C., learned HCGP appearing for respondents-1 and 2 would support the order passed by Assistant Commissioner - second 6 respondent and consequently, she would pray for suitable orders being passed.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers, it requires to be noticed at the outset that petitioner herein is claiming to have purchased the subject property from respondents-3 & 4 on the strength of an agreement of sale dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure-E). Thus, petitioner does not have any right insofar as property in question inasmuch as, holder of an agreement of sale does not have any right. On that ground itself, present petition deserves to be dismissed. Even otherwise, appellate tribunal being the last fact finding authority, having examined the claim of respondents-3 & 4 as to whether they being agriculturist or not has recorded a finding that records produced by them was sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that there is no violation of Section 79A & 79B of the Act. At paragraph 8 of the impugned order, finding has been recorded with 7 regard to the documents produced by respondents-3 & 4 before the authorities which came to be scrutinized by the appellate tribunal. Said finding of fact recorded by the tribunal would not call for interference at the hands of this court as it does not suffer from infirmity either in law or on facts. There are no other good ground to entertain this writ petition. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.
8. In view of rejection of petition, I.A.1/2018 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp