Sri Ningegowda vs The Asst Commissioner & Competent ... on 20 October, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ningegowda vs The Asst Commissioner & Competent ... on 20 October, 2011

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29*" DAY OF OCTOBER 2011

BEFORE

THE HUMBLE MR, JUSTICE JAWAD RAH.E§?E.""'b~."' r» 

LAND REFORMS REVESEON PETJIII_C)1\E §\;0;'1/"2m':f  "  'V

BETWEEN:

SRI. NINGEGOWDA,
MMOR,

S/O CHANNEGOWDA,  
R/O HANUMANTHAPURA' x;_11..LA<;'E,*~  
KASBA HOBLE,   _    '
HASSAN TALUK -»~ 53"3201 
HA$SAN DISTRICT  '

 WPETZTIONER

(BY SR3] %%éV[3; ~:§4%;:;<;%+{}¢;%t\sA:;ép.£g, Aexéfj
AND: % Z 2 2

1. _T.HE AS'S'.'__F, COMIVEISTSIONER
~  CCJMPETE-N? ALETHGRETY
% é  1L;§:;"mE'R..:"i-15 K33LR?=mTAi<A
 . L.aN~:>»RgE'QR§~a5 ACT, 1.951
 ':»:AT.=.:::s;2m\:'T.s;;;B szvzgiswg
'1~.%'§»%;s.§;*§A:x;~;'T;;e 593323:

2*  3'E*'§'E.T5'ﬁ1:E=~§S£LBAR,
%'%;.;;;<_;§A£\s TALLEK & §£ST'REC"§"
*  aéssaw --~ 332%:

  "S:»«§":". RAMAKKA;
 MAEQR?
we T, swam",

'a¢{)k("«« A .



R/O ADLEVALLI VILLAGE,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT
HASSAN -- 573201

4. SR1. RABEGOWDA,
MAJOR,
S/O CHANNEGOWDA,  
R/O HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE, j; '
KASBA HOBLI,   "

HASSAN TALUK - 57320.1 

5. SR}; E\3AN}EG<DWDA,
MAJOR, 
S/G CHANNEGOWQA-,_   
R/O HANUEVEANTHAPURA "x.(:!,";»:_gGE--,_   _
KASBA HOBLI,    u  
wxssmxz TALLLK - §573'2*23, _ 

6. SR1. H_,'XI'\5"£,£.¥__V3}s'~.NfTHE{3QW_DA',  
MAJOFQ    
S/O %.cHANNE€;:{3W-DfA,.% ' 

Rgo HAf\i£}Ev1AP»3?THf\P":,E_Rﬁ\ VELLAGE,

KASBA %a:V0BLj1:-W' '  " 
HASSAN_TAL_U§<f  S'~7._32c:'1

7, gm. MA'LLEGo'wD-A,'
..«.%-MAEQR; " H  _
_ & §;:3'.CHANNEGQ"wDA;
.  _ 'j,Q'«%i%;f\.V!fx£"Ui$e'iAP»£T§~"EAPURA VILLAGE;
 KA$»§;A %%~:~a§s._1_,,
 ~-.%*%g§gS'.3¥%§'§'f§"§'a§.i}E< - 3732a:

mRES?§€'\§§EE'*a£TS

:,-~._\;:.§'-z SR:., §§;azRULLA KHAN? %~%C§?, EQR R: & R2}
* 33:, §. §'E?é§<${?ﬁC§€ﬁ§..,%, gams, §'°'QR R3)
'--:;;5:%:f_»§§e%.;:r gga. §"%A'%.i§@§;§§<§Si% & gm, §<R:S%%:?*»§§ Rim? %mE.:'%,§

. éx!"£:§v%S'; mg F24)

XXX



THES LANE REFORMS REVISEON PETITION IS FI_._L__ED
UNDER SECTION 121A OF KARNATAKA LAND REFGEREVES

ACT. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATEQ 15.10.2010 PASSE0

IN APPEAL No.89?/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE KAP_NATATKA_ ' 
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, ALLoW'1--NG.TV"TETE"-e 
APPEAL Lu/SEC. 118(2) OF KARNATAKA LAAs.D_'~'RVEE.QR_M$'~  

ACT 1961, ..

THIS PETITEON COMING Oi-J FOP;

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOVA/{:N--:3:*~'    _
0 R    F 

Revision petition,  UF1deVf_....ué"¢CtE'£3.E:}. .1'21-:..,/\A.,P§0f the
Karnataka Land Ref0rm§'.;\é'E*c,   against the
order dated 15.,10'.2010;AshPa§§;;§§:A.ff;u_§%.0'A9£22004 on the ﬁie
of the Karn§.taT{'0__

2LLm c0§éfE0§§*0:0 are ;

RamVé1T%'¢l§Aa..(f'§"?_ 4ﬁ--:%f5";3~<T:_i>;'dent herein) Eéaimed is be the

 0000; Eh 'p0sses's'é~0€1._.§f~ Earzd in survey N0' 93/? measuring

 Z:;Vi1x:§'E-v,_2'Ef;{'..§i;§f:tas Eituated Er: Hamsmagzthagura viiéage

m}%;'T:~$g ;pé.:"z9{;h§afLsVfs.~:-:0 if 2:000? a Tegéstereé saie Aeea 03:90

'.V13LGf%,..1§.$§V4'§T0m we Raﬁagewéa :A;h0 £100 azqazéreﬁ it

V' "..:"T»*,LEAAf"i§?:;",'*.%'f" & ﬂﬁﬁﬁd 0:' famééy §aT't§?:§00,

 



M15"
Petitioner herein approached the 13' respondent-

Tasildar alleging that the sale under which Rarrrakka claimed title was ab initfo void in law as the lands *e§e»re inalienable. Tahsildar sent report to the Commissioner who, by the impugned 28.5.2004, not only annulled the 1sale'_:pde__e'<:l__ ee:r1_ijd:;er¢tégL&to restoration of the property toosrthe pe'tiAtEto--rrer. aV.'.A;ssfa§l'lng"': V she was in appeal before the lrippeilate VT~flt'Ii'L:i"l':£E1f tegho, by the impugned order, haxrea-alio_l}\re{.l'VAt'heappeal settérlg aside the order passed by the rCj_orré~missio:3er as unsustainable. A's'%fS.3;i'lin<;;._ it; this 're3)'islon.._isA filed. 3§:VV"__§,E-Lié' Core'?iZ'0r3'te_hlt.Ep'h_. Eh suppert of the relief is, petitioner and 'resp.oraxiiei2~t's 4 ta 3? are sons of one irlr.

""~..VfCha..r§E't.egpwrja ahV7o'%za.2r«e acquired the property in questroe fey térsrtestatte,'"spt:c:esséoh. They are agrrczﬁturésts and have beehbé ehgegéiarbl lahe éh Sy, rates 9352 (iehd in question} "._{r:ea$:§rEh'e§ 4 acres 11 gtzratast 9tereaE<§<a~=3'ﬁ respeadehes eiaire that she perchasee rape Eh cguestéoh is tmtereabie, férstly because -5- she claims to have purchased it from Rajegowda who, according to them, did riot have absoiute title. asserted the saie being void ab initio, cooferre.d~-ho.'_tit'i'e:V"

consequent to which they sought protection _oflposse1s~si'4oo.' She fiied a suit in 0s. No. 324/19s0 a:gai,h's_t hm:

brothers which was decreed on_9.1.i'9§8.. Sin}:-i;ita"i1eou:sii,2i V they aiso noticed mutation eht'ri.:e'S» in her: so questioned the same bzefore that was hot successfui, they Section 136(2) of Kar'n'a'taiia the 15*' respondent iii'! The appeal was dismissed 'in VV\}'ie'§f~i»L:Vhoof:"i'j:i%iV'd--g'rrient in O.S.No.324/1990. Accordihgiitot .thVeoi,'r.'the.'t' order impugned is not in ..v..'eccor§ifV§.eVrié::;e with"'«-Se_cti;r:h 80 of Karhataka Lane Reforms §1;(l;:jif,; __e:5_'th'epV«"'iEs5sue was not considered in the right pe r5s'p.iec:tVii;:e.';L: .. "

Siiitiieeroeo coorisei were submit that the perioo oi ._§ i~if'iii*i"rit'a.:tioi'i is rioi: the oeie factor whicia the izopeiiete Tiiiouriaé sheeid have considered, partieoiarig when the delay was expiained satisfacteriiy. He submits, iong--dr-awn litigation show from 1986 tiii recently, the petitio:*i7e'r*:hf%griiiivr,4 his co-owner'heve beer: agitating their "

uitimateiy resuited in their faveiir:i3V"t--he o'_rde_r' it the Assistant Commissioner. H'ow:e3rer, ignored to rrotice these facts an_§i"'ho}as seit._asidAe".th'e;:o'roer of " i the 3." respondent thatnthe 'Vsaie."%_:trerrsactio'n-.rI~1ex,.§ of the year 1986 and the by the 1"

respondent is _r;if.:t:he_ according to him, is; to the provision Sectiorr~Z79 RiefotriinsaA<:t»,....ri'e submits no person or famiiyior jointv Jhahs an assured income of not less than'*Rs.2,{§O,ﬁQVO/sf:from the sources other than agrieriitiiirai ineorr"se,,_.._sriaii se entitied to corrferrrrent of any 'ianti».ir§riri_eti*ievr:'as_ierre owner, iaridiorci, tenerii: or rnertgegee iz§:tn'~i'oossVess.ii1on er otherwise or eertieeieriy eny one eepairgitigﬁayrie in any other cepecityi rie submits 3"

A reseeneerit eerriee in tire eeregory er eersoes referred re in Aéreetien ﬁre} or the Kiﬁ. set and was thus ereiiibiteo from 'acquiring the Eerie. in this View er the matter, the order

-7"

passed by the Assistant Commissioner was just and proper.

6. In negation of these contentions, iearned CCLE:fi«S [email protected] for the 3"} respondent, with vehemence, points. the petitioner's revision is not mainteEna_bie beCa'os'e.h'e has faiéed to substantiate his titie. Refeleéttinajnto' sé*Jere:!' 3ti'zié'ici;a'iT1.i.i precedents he submits the cbn_t'entions'~-in t.hei".beVt;ti-so sire contrary to the findings tecorded__b*g__t§*ae coLir't..:,He7derives citations! support to 'ts-isT.,Contentioos:'i'siying on the following decision_s--: _ "

If Mo»§¥:,A:\{:}5?;{: .::'*;<§"_}:\\/I .%i¥»iomviAo AMIN .vs. '-FATAMA-s_4At,:'agA----:-iti<v1 (1997[s] sec 71) and ti) i<ai'iAPtAYi5i/hi " REDDY A/s. WHNCIPAL s'EcsE*t;:xR\g, 'REVENUE DEPARTMENT st §TtEEﬁ5....(.¥ﬁf€§0V§@@} ' -Vff;..T't:s«soo_tent&oos of both iztze sioss have teeeéveo mitt setéotés'Viiittésisioetatioo.

"fat toe otttssti it is §":EC%$$&i";,f to sottss in '=.{_j;.Si"i*It;:;t32s«;§:§%G was tééeoi by 3" §'8$§G§';§§EE?-?;a§'§'%3§<§<;$ against the oetitéonet ass his brothers seekésg ésctse for

9. It is not in dispute parties had acceptedftiie verdict without assailihg it, but with disdaihfui;*'c--oi'h;3§§_tt',:_:"

filed 0.3.200/04. Petitioner hereih-NEhgegowe_'a'*~..wai§' 2"" piaihtiff aiong with the Nanjeg:§wd:a"T'aj;h'd.t[ Together they reasserted thVe'ir'_ righ'ta i'r=. resvpectfcif thee V property in questieh and as washvhexeectedwhhiet'ciefeeit. It is thus clear that after' i_i_6sing'_'AV .1f..ia~ttAEes aigainst 3"

respondent to henouif heri.v"__VVisaIe"'~~.Vv'tEé3heactioh, they apprcached Commissioner for action Land Reforms Act.

The of the petitiener and hie brothterethat A:,i?e.§;i'e.:§deiat was met tinder iaw entitied to purchase iarie 'which- ate agrarian in hatute, has by the ."'i'm§i;§ahe.éi etaet, aievhhiiééied the sate éeee. Whiie eeéhg ee, :_reeii'eee.th§is~%.a'eea, it has eirecteﬁ teeteratieh ef Khetha {:9 the h:a~{eeV?£'.efV the eetitieher ahe hie brethera ae if he wee "':ieCEdihg.__ii'E<e Civéi QC}:-§Eﬂ§\':¥ ejiﬁ, ixieeéieee to say' that the eeeeeeeeeees that fieex .ivi.f-Fa sate deed ie eheeéied apeiyihg Seetéeh ?9(e'} at KLR Act -10- has been totally ignored by the 15*" respondent in passing such order. The natural consequence would have been land would reverted back to the State; as a censeet:e'n.ee.VV contravention of the provisions of the Land Refo_r;ns")iA\:'c:t.}e:"' ~

11. At this juncture it is pertinent .'towvn'oticeV"t.het factern of possession of the propertyin5:qttlestien' of the 3" respondent has bee't.--.ed'eelared a_s~eer~!.y the year 1998 itself. Even reckoning:'tLn.e'fefrorn,'"'tili. 2.504 she is deemed to be in _ef the land.

Despite ciear decision re§é'rdiihg_:'fe:c--tt;|n ofpossessien and adjudication llo~fi.5'tEt_l'e7i:in ifatmr attne 3" respendent, the Assistant'*Co'n:rn'iss'i'e.lhei*"~e:n"nu'is the sale deed in beiated actionefter ilaéinttostt.v":7"'yeén"st He snouid have realised he "'w,as"'o'-neé<*forn":.ing ewéniesiwjndieéal fttnetéen and e casnai eee_ree't:.:h"*~t.e"ti'eeVE'.i.wétn the tsetse arising under Section 79{ej:

ef thie net eéeeée have infnnged the veinable ngte: te the ."""-__V"';n*ejnerty,_.ef e nereon, He nee redaited te keep in rnénd the s.";isee.%_t§.en ef éeni es exeennded int; tne Enneien ﬁenen ef tnie _,£?73:i_%F'{ in tne ease et £<,n*'ere;xen ﬁeotfy ms, ﬁrineieef NW9' t1;_ Secretary, Revenuebepartment & Others (disposed on 14.6.2007) and also the order in w.P.2oose/912 connected matters. The judgment ef the iV5n_.__ 1997(6) sec 71 which rules the subject nesas%;st$otngt;,beet kept in mind. In the instant case,:;peve:n,4p«EAfj, that there is contravention of.tSectien".7é%'{a) the 3*" respondent in purchasinﬁtne propiertijﬂviiﬁy efflux of time of 17' years, no ercietjis it it 12' The .co:nte_ntioe'Viotttite'=i:e3rneci,'tiounseﬁ for the petitioner tnat'"'d.eie\,":V~_V_nasf'-be'e_afa Ie_xp_'£aiVned does not appeal as a st§Vstain_e'biVi'e gr:"ot:::t§}-.'_'vVThe- eontention that petitioner am his pmtnets' wiet-fe~.p'a'tt§'i"i*:g' with the revenue authorities fer r:eeti1ficat'ip»n'A'ot'* einttiies it; the records which had ﬁ'toe's'tstt§etE ststfficientiiiitiree is es reason to note that the kzfattsei'sﬁové;ej't~.%s1-~sufficient. The reason fer restraining %eitEe__t%on'effaettoe tzneer Seetéon ?9{a} ef the éet after a ""'-..""%:;«:'2pg i tee 5? time is te prevent méeptecement of the _'sVet%:Eeié §§S§"{E€:§'% in tastziett the patties assets have peer:

...g.:=.§etee.

-12-

13. Viewed from any angte, the order of the 2" respondents--Assistat:t Commissioner and_;'1*a§1$E!_de7:1__"~~.

under Section 79(a) of the KLR Act is unsueta..E':r*e».3Vbtwe:'andz rightty the Trébunai has set it aside?

passed by the Tribunal is just, pretpefend tn V circumstances and raeeés ee iht'eff'er_ence;~. &_'t'E1':e ﬁetitioe, therefore, faiis.

Kv/vgh*, ----    M

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court