Karnataka High Court
Shri K Pillapa vs State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2013
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON' BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WP No.17800/2012(KLR-RR-SUR)
BETWEEN
1. SHRI K PILLAPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
R/AT VARANASI @ JINKETHIMMANAHALLI
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
2. SHRI S SHANRAJ
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE SEENAPPA
R/AT VARANASI @ JINKETHIMMANAHALLI
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
3. SHRI VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKARAMSHANAPPA
R/AT VARANASI @ JINKETHIMMANAHALLI
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
4. SHRI A ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE ANNIYAPPA
R/AT VARANASI @ JINKETHIMMANAHALLI
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.H R RAGHU, ADV., ABSENT)
-2-
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
5TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE- 01
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2. REVENUE COMMISSIONER
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009
4. SHRI LINGAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE JANGAMA REDDY
R/AT B CHANNASANDRA
BANASAWADI,
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POST
BANGALORE- 16
5. SHRI J HANUMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE JANGAMA REDDY
R/AT B CHANNASANDRA
BANASAWADI,
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POST
BANGALORE- 16
6. SHRI J KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE JANGAMA REDDY
R/AT B CHANNASANDRA
BANASAWADI,
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POST
BANGALORE- 16
-3-
7. SHRI J RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE JAGAMMA REDDY
R/AT B CHANNASANDRA
BANASAWADI,
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POST
BANGALORE- 16
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.B VEERAPPA AGA FOR R1-3
SRI.RAJENDRA, ADV. FOR
M/S.HOLLA AND HOLLA, ADV.S FOR R.4 & 6
SRI.JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR R.7
A/W SRI.C.G.GOPALASWAMY, ADV. FOR R.5 & 7.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO INITIATE
APPROPRIATE ACTION PURSUANT TO COD REPORT,
ANNEXURE-H AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 OR ANY
PERSON/S CLAIMING UNDER THEM IN ANY CAPACITY
WHATSOEVER AND TO EVICT UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS OF
LAND IN QUESTION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO MAKE NECESSARY ENTRIES IN
THE RECORD OF RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN
QUESTION SHOWING "STATE" AS THE HOLDER OF THE LAND
IN QUESTION and DIRECT INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 AND ALL
THOSE OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DELIBERATE
INACTION IN DISCHARGING THEIR STATUTORY DUTIES AND
HAVE INDULGED IN GIVING ACCESS TO RESPONDENT NOS.4
TO 7 TO PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND TO BRING THEM TO
BOOKS AS PROVIDED UNDER CHAPTER XIV-A OF THE
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
ORDER
D.H.WAGHELA, C.J. (Oral) :
1. The petition is filed by four petitioners who, claiming to be public spirited persons, have claimed to have filed the petition as pro bono publico. The main prayer in the petition is to issue an appropriate direction or writ directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to initiate appropriate action, pursuant to Corps of Detectives (COD) report at Annexure-G, against respondent Nos.4 to 7 or any persons claiming under them in any capacity and to evict unauthorized occupants of land in question and further to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to make necessary entries in the Record of Rights in respect of the land in question showing "State" as the holder of the land in question. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to institute criminal proceedings against respondent Nos.4 to 7 and all those officials responsible for their deliberate inaction in discharging their statutory duties.
2. The factual basis of the petition is that lands in Survey Nos.25, 26, 27 and a portion of 28 in all admeasuring 10 acres, 18 guntas situated in Jodi Inam village is a public property. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 or their predecessors are -5- alleged to have never applied for grant of occupancy rights and the land is alleged to have been vested in the Government as unclaimed property under Section 1(4) of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954. It is alleged that respondent Nos.4 to 7 and their predecessor late Jangama Reddy, in collusion with revenue officials, obliterated original entries showing rejection of grant of occupancy rights and got inserted names of persons illegally and fraudulently, as if the grant is made to those persons, though in reality their claim was rejected. It is further alleged that respondent Nos.4 to 7 got created various documents based on other created documents and started claiming interest over land in question, which is purely a Government land meant for the benefit of general public. It is stated in the petition that all efforts put in by the petitioners to activate the state machinery to take appropriate action on the basis of Report of COD, which was ordered to investigate the matter had failed and respondent Nos.4 to 7 and persons claiming under them were trying to perpetuate fraud and that the petition for an appropriate direction is filed to protect public property.-6-
3. After filing the present petition in June 2012, the petition appears to have been posted for hearing on 09.08.2012, when notice was ordered to be issued and in view of the Report of COD status-quo was ordered to be maintained at the site. Pursuant to that order, the steps required to be taken for service upon respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were not taken and hence it was ordered on 09.10.2012, that interim order passed earlier on 09.08.2012 would cease to operate, if steps were not taken by the petitioners to serve respondent Nos.4 to 6. If steps were taken to serve, the interim order was directed to continue only till the next date of hearing i.e. 04.12.2012. Thereafter, learned Advocates have appeared for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and statement of objections on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 7 has been filed with a prayer to dismiss the petition with exemplary cost.
4. It is revealed on oath in the statement of objections of respondent Nos.5 and 7 that the petition is not pro bono publico in so far as the petitioners have personal vendetta against the family of Sri.Jangama Reddy, the father of respondents, and petitioner No.1 is a close relative of -7- Sri.B.K.Narayanaswamy, at whose instance respondent No.1 had initiated an enquiry by the then COD into allegations of land grabbing by Sri.Jangama Reddy. After relating the background of several successive transactions in respect of lands in question, it is stated that before Sri.B.K.Narayanaswamy approached respondent No.1 for initiation of enquiry by COD, his father Sri.B.N.Kalappa and Sri.Jangama Reddy were locked in civil litigations commencing with OS No.679/1989 in the Court of Principal Second Munsiff, Bangalore, which was instituted by Sri.B.N.Kalappa seeking declaration of his title to an extent of 3 acres 19 guntas in the land bearing Survey No.28. The matter was carried in appeal culminating in SLP (Civil) No.2659/1998 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court resulting in the claim of Sri.B.N.Kalappa being rejected. Thus, the title of Sri.Jangama Reddy to the said extent of land was confirmed. In spite of that Smt.Nagamma daughter of Sri.B.N.Kalappa filed another OS No.306/1997 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore seeking partition of the land bearing same Survey number against Sri.B.K.Narayanaswamy and his brothers, as well as the legal heirs of Sri.Jangama Reddy and the Court rejected the claim -8- on account of the concluded litigation as aforesaid.
Thereafter, there have been several rounds of litigations among the parties and the statements made on the basis thereof in the statement of objections read as under;
"10. The foregoing chronology of events makes it manifest that the petitioners are trying to reopen several settled questions on the strength of the report of the COD at Annexure-G, which, as already stated is inconclusive and is not the equivalent of the result of an inquiry in a civil proceeding or a proceeding under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; further, it is plain that the first petitioner, who is the son of Sri.Narayanaswamy's maternal uncle, is trying to wreak vengeance on these respondents for and on behalf of Sri.Naryanaswamy. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not the platform for such personal vendetta. The petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable and also for abusing the processes of this Hon'ble Court."
It is further stated that:
" 14. The petitioners have concealed from this Hon'ble Court the fact that Sri.B.K.Narayanaswamy, after having set the first respondent to institute the inquiry by the COD and armed with the report in the said inquiry (annexure-G), has filed OS No.3010/2006 in the Court -9- of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, against the fourth to the seventh respondents and his own siblings for declaration that he and his siblings are the absolute owners of an extent of
2 acres 33 guntas and karab of 26 guntas in the land bearing Sy.No.28 (new No.28/1), Jinkethimmanahalli @ Varanasi, Bidarahalli Hobli, now Hosakote Taluk, that the decree in OS No.679/1989 is fraudulent. The said suit is pending. In view of this, Sri.Narayanaswamy is a necessary party to this petition.
15. The petitioners have not demonstrated any public interest in the subject matter of this writ petition; given the history of the lands in question and the title disputes that have already seen the highest Court of the country and that are now seized of by competent civil Courts, what is involved in this petition is unsubstantiated claim for the lands in question by the first respondent, albeit because of the complaint of Sri.B.K.Narayanaswamy; the first respondent stands in the same footing as a person claiming title to property. The petitioners cannot be an instrument for the first respondent to fend for it, but this averment is not to admit that the first respondent has any right to the lands in question."
5. It is abundantly clear from the above facts and pleadings of the parties that the petitioners are not inspired by
- 10 -
any concern for public interest, but the jurisdiction of this Court and the avenue provided in the form of public interest litigation has been put to gross abuse by the petitioners. After the petition being listed from time to time, when the matter is taken up for hearing today, no one is present for the petitioners and even courtesy of seeking an adjournment is not shown on behalf of petitioners.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jayakumar S.Patil has appeared and argued for respondent No.7, while learned counsel Sri. C.G. Gopalaswamy, has appeared for respondent Nos.5 and 7 and learned counsel Sri.Rejendra, has also appeared for respondent Nos.4 and 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Veerappa has appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and tried to defend the actions being taken on the basis of COD Report, which is clouded by factual averments made in the statement of objections. He also submitted that by now revenue entries are mutated on the basis of COD Report in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It was however conceded that such entries and the vesting of land in the Government is directly or indirectly the subject matter of pending civil
- 11 -
litigation, as also, the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.7 herein in the form of WP No.51755/2012, which was tagged with the present petition, although it has to be adjudicated by a learned Single Judge, as per roster.
7. In view of above facts and pendency of other litigations in respect of the same land, it would be improper and hazardous to express any opinion as regards the rival claims of respondents and Government. However, the inescapable conclusion which has to be drawn is that petitioners have concealed and suppressed in the petition their personal interest and the record of prolonged litigation in respect of same land, as also the controversies surrounding the claim of the parties in respect of the land in question. It appears that, after the other relevant facts coming on record in the form of statement objections of respondent Nos.5 and 7, the petitioners have abandoned the present proceeding after its pendency for about a year, hearing on several occasions and making of several orders. The petitioners have also not cared to file any rejoinder to the statement of objections. Under the circumstances, it is not enough to just dismiss the petition after considerable waste of precious public time of the Court
- 12 -
and expenses which the respondents are presumed to have incurred for appearance through learned advocates. Therefore, without commenting upon the rights of rival parties in respect of the land in question, the petition is dismissed only on the ground of it being found to be an abuse of process of this Court, with cost quantified at Rs.50,000/-, out of which, Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.3 and Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to each of respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7, within a period of 15 days from the date of this order.
In view of the dismissal of Writ Petition, interim application does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE mv