Karnataka High Court
Sri Guruvaraju K vs State Of Karnataka on 5 October, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.27428/2015 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI GURUVARAJU K.
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O CHANGAMA RAJU
R/AT NO.35, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
KOTTANUR DINNE,
BANGALORE-560062.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI R RAVI SHANKAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. ABMEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560009
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. C.MUNISWAMAPPA
2
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
A) M.SRINIVASA
S/O LATE C.MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
B) M. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE C.MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.8, 4TH CROSS,
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560041.
4. SRI. GUMMAIAH
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT ARAHALLI VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560085.
5. SRI. TATAREDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
A) SMT. KAMALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O LATE TATAREDDY,
B) SMT. VASANTHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
D/O LATE TATAREDDY,
C) SMT. SAVITHRI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
D/O LATE TATAREDDY,
D) CHANDRASHEKAR
3
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O LATE TATAREDDY,
E) VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O LATE TATAREDDY,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.18,
MARTHA'S HOSPITAL ROAD,
UTTARAHALLI,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
6. SMT. SHANTHA
D/O LATE SONABAI
R/AT NO.1, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADV. FOR R3 (A)
SRI R.K. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R3(B)
SRI K.S. SRIDHARMURTHY, ADV. FOR R4
SRI. L. VIJAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5 (A-E)
V/O DATED 08.03.2016 NOTICE TO R6 H/S)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2015, VIDE ANNX-M
PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE SOUTH
TALUK, BANGALORE IN LRF.NO.666/1974-75, LRF
NO.1407/1974-75, LRF NO.2059/1974-75 & LRF
NO.3571/1975-76 AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE LAND
TRIBUNAL BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE FOR
FRESH ENQUIRY.
4
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 23/08/2023 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, a purchaser from the tenant- respondent No.5, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.05.2015 in L.R.F. Nos.666/1974-75, 1407/1974-75, 2059/1974-75 and 3571/1975-76, passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal') granting occupancy right to respondent No.4, and praying to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh enquiry.
2. Brief facts of the case are that,
(a) The land bearing Sy.No.42 to an extent of 2 acres 29 guntas of Uttarahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, originally belonged to one Nagoji 5 Rao, and thereafter to his wife Sonabai. One Venaktappa claims as tenant under Nagoji Rao and Sonabai for over 30 years prior to 1969. It is stated that on 31.12.1969, Sonabai had issued a legal notice to Venkatappa claiming arrears of rent which established that Venkatappa was cultivating and was in occupation of the land. On 31.12.1974, said Venkatappa filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the above stated 2 acres 29 guntas of land. One Gummaiah had also filed Form No.7 on 23.12.1974 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.42 to an extent of 2 acres. In the meanwhile, Sri. Gummaiah had also filed a suit in O.S. No.1114/1974 for bare injunction which was refused. It is to be stated here itself that Gummaiah was the son-in-law of Venkatappa. One Lalithamma, the wife of Gummaiah and daughter of Venkatappa also filed Form No.7 in respect of 6 the same land on 19.02.1976. One Sri. Tatareddy, son of Venkatappa also filed Form No.7 on 29.05.1976 in respect of 1 acre 15 guntas. Further, one Bommaiah, son of Venkatappa, also filed Form No.7 on 08.09.1976 in respect of 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.42. On 11.05.1976, one C.Muniswappa claiming to be a sub-tenant under Venkatappa, filed Form No.7 to an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas in respect of Sy.No.42. The Land Tribunal, respondent No.2 herein, clubbed all Form No.7 and by its order dated 14.10.1976 granted occupancy rights in respect of the land in question in favour of a) Tatareddy b) Gummaiah c) Bommaiah and d) Lalithamma.
(b) C.Muniswamappa (respondent No.3), who claimed that he was a sub-tenant under Venkatappa, aggrieved by the rejection of Form No.7 filed by him as well as Tatareddy (respondent No.5) 7 approached this Court in Writ Petition No.1555/1977 and W.P.No.11129/1976. This Court on 29.11.1978, allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 14.10.1976 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh enquiry.
(c) On remand, the Land Tribunal vide order dated 11.09.1979, granted occupancy rights in favour of,
a) Tatareddy to an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas;
b) Muniswamappa to an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas;
c) Gummaiah to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas under heirs of Rama rao.
Pursuant to the grant of occupancy rights, Form No.10 dated 27.10.1979 was issued.
(d) Challenging the grant of occupancy rights under order dated 11.09.1979 to Tatareddy and Muniswamappa, Gummaiah filed Writ Petition No.15674/1979, Bommaiah filed W.P.No. 8 17854/1979 and Lalithamma filed W.P.No.17655/1979. This Court by order dated 09.01.1984 allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 11.09.1979 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh enquiry.
(e) On remand, the Tribunal by order dated 06.02.1988 granted occupancy rights again in favour of Tatareddy to an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas and C.Muniswamappa to an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas. Questioning order of the Land Tribunal dated 06.02.1988, Lalithamma filed W.P.No.25228/1993 and the same was allowed by this Court by order dated 25.09.2001. Gummaiah had also filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal challenging the order of Tribunal dated 06.02.1988 in which stay was operating. Subsequently, the same was converted into 9 W.P.No.12848/1996 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2001.
(f) In the meanwhile, Tatareddy, respondent No.5 herein, had sold the land in question to an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas under the registered sale deed dated 24.03.1995 in favour of the petitioner herein. The legal representatives of Muniswamappa also executed an agreement of sale, through an irrevocable power of attorney, to an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.42 in favour of petitioner herein.
(g) In pursuance to the remand order dated 11.12.2001 and 25.09.2001, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Gummaiah to an extent of 2 acres 29 guntas by order dated 10.01.2003. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got himself impleaded in the proceedings. 10
(h) The petitioner being the Power of Attorney Holder for M.Srinivas and M.Krishnappa and for himself, along with Tatareddy, questioned the order dated 10.01.2003 granting occupancy rights in favour of Gummaiah, in W.P.No.4106/2003. This Court by order dated 14.01.2008, allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 10.01.2003 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter after affording an opportunity to both the parties in accordance with law. Against order of the learned Single Judge, Gummaiah, respondent No.1 in the writ petition, filed W.A.No.1567/2008 and W.A. Nos.1908-1910/2008, and the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 29.07.2009 dismissed the appeals.
(i) Again, on remand, the Tribunal under impugned order dated 20.05.2015, granted occupancy rights to Sri. Gummaiah, Son of Venkatappa, and also to 11 Sri. Srinivas, S/o Muniswamappa. Challenging the order dated 20.05.2015 granting occupancy rights to Sri. Gummaiah and Sri. Srinivas, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. G.V.Chandrashekar for Sri. R.Ravishankar learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. Shouri H.R., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2; and the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. M.R.Rajagopal for Sri. H.N.Basavaraju learned counsel for respondent No.3(a). Perused the entire writ petition papers and case laws produced by both parties.
4. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. G.V.Chandrashekar would submit that impugned order of the Land Tribunal is contrary to the judgment dated 29.07.2009 in Writ Appeal No.1567/2008 and connected appeals wherein the Division Bench recognized the right 12 of the petitioner, but no reasonable opportunity was provided by the Tribunal in terms of the above stated order. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that in W.P.No. No.4106/2003, wherein the petitioner herein was also a party, the learned Single Judge had remanded the matter to the Tribunal to enable the petitioners therein to defend their case properly and to afford an opportunity, but in terms of the remand order, the Tribunal failed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and to putforth his case. Further, the learned Senior counsel would submit that the petitioner having purchased the land in question and also having entered into sale agreement, stepped into the shoes of his vendor, and hence, an opportunity of hearing and leading evidence ought to have been provided to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner purchased the land in question from Tatareddy under the registered sale deed dated 13 24.03.1995, subsequent to the expiry of non-alienation period. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the occupancy right to Tatareddy (the vendor of the petitioner herein) was granted under order of the Tribunal dated 06.02.1988, which relates back to the first order of the Tribunal dated 14.10.1976, and sale deed is executed after non-alienation period of fifteen years from the date of the first order. In that regard, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench at Kalaburagi, in W.P.No. No.223747/2020, disposed of on 15.11.2022. Further, he would submit that as the purchase is after the lapse of non-alienation period, the transaction is not hit by Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the 1961 Act'). Both, in terms of the sale deed and agreement of sale, the petitioner has acquired interest in the land in question and therefore, the 14 petitioner ought to have been provided proper opportunity.
5. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. G.V.Chandrashekar, with regard to order passed by the Land Tribunal would submit that the order passed by the Land Tribunal is one without fresh enquiry and he submits that the Tribunal order is based on the agreement dated 09.03.2015 entered into between M.Srinivas, S/o C.Muniswamappa and Gummaiah, Son of Venkataswamappa. It is contended that without determining the tenancy as required under law, the Tribunal could not have granted occupancy rights based on the agreement entered into between two parties. In that regard, learned Senior Counsel, also invites attention of this Court to agreement dated 09.03.2015 which is placed on record as Document No.24 along with the Memo dated 31.03.2023. Further, it is also submitted that impugned order of the Tribunal suffers 15 from non-application of mind, in that the Land Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in granting land in excess of what was sought for in Form No.7. It is also submitted that there is manipulation in Form No.7 filed by Sri.Gummaiah which the Tribunal failed to take note of, since Gummaiah, in his evidence, has admitted that the vendor of the petitioner was in cultivation of the land in question i.e., Sy.No.42. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel prays for allowing the writ petition, to set aside impugned order of the Land Tribunal and to remand the matter for fresh enquiry.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.R.Rajagopal for Sri. H.N.Basavaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.3(a) would submit that the petitioner is neither the landlord nor a tenant or an interested person to question the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 20.05.2015. He submits that the petitioner, who has purchased the lands in question 16 from respondent No.5-Tatareddy and from M.Srinivas, legal representative of respondent No.3(a), has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order of the Tribunal. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Land Tribunal's order dated 06.02.1988 granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.5-Tatareddy as well as respondent No.3, but the same was set aside by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2001 in W.P.No.12848/1996. The sale deed executed on 24.03.1995 is invalid and Tatareddy could not have executed the said sale deed. In view of setting aside of the Tribunal's order dated 06.02.1988, on the basis of which respondent No.5-Tatareddy had executed the sale deed, the base itself is set aside. Hence, the sale deed would be invalid. When the order granting occupancy rights in favour of Tatareddy is quashed by this Court, it invalidates the sale deed executed on the basis of the order granting occupancy rights. Further, the learned 17 Senior Counsel would also contend that in terms of Section 61 of the 1961 Act, respondent No.5 could not have executed the sale deed within the non-alienation period i.e., within 15 years from the date of order granting occupancy rights. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the occupancy right was granted on 06.02.1988, in favour of respondent No.5, which was subsequently set aside, and respondent No.5 executed sale deed on 24.03.1995 and the petitioner also entered into an agreement of sale with Sri. M.Srinivas, legal representative of respondent No.3 on the same date in respect of the lands in question in Sy.No.No.42, and since the sale is within the non-alienation period prescribed under Section 61 of the 1961 Act, the consequence would be that the sale would be invalidated. He submits that the petitioner has no right to challenge the impugned order of the Land Tribunal and the petitioner has no locus to present the writ 18 petition. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contention, places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jayamma Vs. Maria Bai dead by proposed LRs. And Another1. Thus, learned Senior Counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed in the writ petition for the following reasons:
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not a tenant or the landlord in respect of the land in Sy.No.42 to an extent of 2 acres 29 guntas.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the land in question from respondent No.5- Tatareddy under two sale deeds dated 24.03.1995 in 1 (2004)7 SCC 459 19 respect of 27½ guntas each in Sy.No.42 and had entered into a sale agreement with legal representatives of respondent No.3-Muniswamappa under the agreement dated 24.03.1995 and registered General Power of Attorney dated 25.03.1995. No doubt, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.5-Tatareddy and Muniswamappa by order dated 06.02.1988, but the same was challenged before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal by Gummaiah, (which was later converted to W.P.No. No.12848/1996) and by Lalithamma in W.P.No.25228/1993. This Court by order dated 11.12.2001 and 25.09.2001 respectively allowed both the above writ petitions and set aside the Land Tribunal order dated 06.02.1988. As the writ petition was allowed and the Land Tribunal order dated 06.02.1988 was set aside there was no grant of occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.5- Tatareddy and respondent No.3-Muniswamppa, and as 20 there was no grant in favour of respondents No.5 and 3, the sale deed executed in the interregnum gets invalidated. The foundation on which the sale deed was executed was quashed. As such, the sale deed executed by respondent No.5 as well as agreement of sale executed by respondents No.3(a) to 3(c) are without any right, title or interest over the land in question.
10. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri. G.V.Chandrashekar had placed much reliance on the order, dated 29.07.2009, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1567/2008 and connected appeals to contend that the sale was recognized and to say that the petitioner has locus to challenge the Land Tribunal's order. The above said writ appeals were filed against the order dated 14.01.2008 passed in W.P.No.4106/2003, wherein the petitioner along with Tatareddy (the vendor) and M.Srinivas and M.Krishnappa (the agreement holders) challenged the 21 Land Tribunal order dated 10.01.2003. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal to enable the petitioners to defend their case properly and for affording opportunity to both the parties therein. Challenging the same, Gummaiah, in whose favour the occupancy right was granted under impugned order, filed the above said writ appeal. On behalf of Gummaiah, it was contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein along with M.Srinivas and M.Krishnappa, the legal representatives of respondent No.3 herein, was not maintainable. In that context, the Division Bench had observed that, if any one of the party has sold the land after completion of the prohibited period, subsequent to the order of the Land Tribunal being set aside, the same cannot be a ground to the appellant to contend that the writ petition filed by M.Srinivas and M.Krishnappa was not maintainable. Neither before the 22 Writ Court or the Writ Appellate Court, the locus standi of the petitioner herein as a purchaser was raised or decided. Moreover, the Division Bench has rejected the contention with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition filed by M.Srinivas and M.Krishnappa. The Division bench has not made any observation with regard to the petitioner herein. It is to be noted that M.Srinivas and M.Krishnappa, the legal representatives of C.Muniswamappa, respondent No.3 herein, were the rival claimants before the Tribunal and as such, they had locus standi to challenge the grant of occupancy rights. Merely because the petitioner was party to writ petition and writ appeal and the matter being remanded, his locus would not stand recognized. There is no contention or finding recognizing petitioner's locus. On a careful reading of the order dated 29.07.2009 passed in W.A.No.1567/2008, I am of the considered opinion that it has not decided the locus of the petitioner to maintain 23 any writ petition or Appeal challenging the occupancy right as purchaser from a tenant. Thus, I conclude that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order of the Land Tribunal.
11. Notwithstanding the findings on locus of petitioner, even on merits, the petitioner has not made out any grounds. The sale deed dated 25.03.1995 was executed by Tatareddy claiming to be the tenant in respect of the land to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.42 and respondents No.3(a) and (b) executed an agreement of sale as well as the General Power of Attorney dated 25.03.1995 in favour of the petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy.No.42 to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas. Occupancy right to respondent No.5 as well as respondent No.3 granted under the Land Tribunal's order dated 06.02.1988, was subsequently set aside. The sale deed, agreement to sell as well as General Power of Attorney executed in the year 1995, were 24 within the non-alienation period. Section 61 of 1961 Act, prohibits transfer of granted land by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment, to any persons other than the heirs of tenant or within the definition of 'family' as contained in Section 2(A)(12) of the 1961 Act. As on the date of execution of sale deed dated 25.03.1995, in terms of Section 61 of the 1961 Act, non-alienation period was 15 years had not lapsed. Thus, the sale deed dated 25.03.1995 is within the non-alienation period. The grant of occupancy right would not confer a right or absolute title over the property in view of the restriction contained in Section 61 of the 1961 Act. Any transaction contrary to section 61(1) of the 1961 Act would be invalid and the land vests with the State Government. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jayamma (supra) was considering Section 61 of 1961 Act and the transfer of granted land by way of "Will" and in the said circumstances, the 25 Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 19, 20 and 27, has held as follows:
"19. Sub-section (3) of Section 61 lays down that any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be invalid whereupon the same shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The legislative intent that the land should not be allowed to go to the bands of a stranger to the family is, therefore, manifest. Whereas in terms of Section 21, strangers to the family of the tenant to come upon the land is not allowed, the tenor of Section 61 is that except partition amongst the co-sharers, no transfer of the property, in any manner, is permissible.
20. When an assignment or transfer is made in contravention of statutory provisions, the consequence whereof would be that same is invalid and thus, being opposed to public policy the same shall attract the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act."
"27. On a fair construction of Section 61 of the Act, in our opinion a transfer of agricultural land with occupancy right is permissible only in 26 favour of one of the heirs who would be entitled to claim partition of land and not others having regard to the definition of 'family' as contained in Section 2(12) and 'joint family' as contained in Section 2(17) of the said Act."
12. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri. G.V.Chandrashekar placing reliance on the decision of a Co-ordiante Bench in W.P.No. No.223747/2022 dated 15.11.2022 contended that the Land Tribunal's order dated 06.02.1988 granting occupancy right relates back to the first order of the Land Tribunal dated 14.10.1976. Thus, he justifies the execution of sale deed in favour of petitioner by respondent No.5 and sale agreement by respondents No.3(a) and 3(b). The decision of the Co- ordinate bench in the above said writ petition would not assist the petitioner in the present fact situation. In the instant case, the order of the Land Tribunal is dated 06.02.1988. In W.P.No.No.25228/1993 and W.P.No.12848/1996, the said order dated 06.02.1988 27 of the Tribunal was set aside by orders dated 25.09.2001 and 11.12.2001 respectively. When once the order is set aside, the order gets wiped out and it would not be an order in the eye of law. In W.P.No.223747/2020 on which petitioner places reliance, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights by order dated 29.02.1988 and on appeal, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal set aside the order dated 29.02.1988. The order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal was challenged before this Court in L.R.R.P.No.1899/1989 and this Court by order dated 11.09.2003, set aside the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal dated 29.02.1988. In the said circumstances, this Court held that on setting aside the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, the non-alienation period shall be counted from the date of the original grant of occupancy dated 29.02.1988 and not from the 28 date of order passed by this Court in L.R.R.P. No.1899/1989. By virtue of setting aside order of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, order of the Land Tribunal get restored.
13. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. G.V.Chandrashekar had also placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Govindappa Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.2 to say that the petitioner is an interested person and as such, the Tribunal ought to have provided him an opportunity.
14. The decision in Govindappa's case would not assist the petitioner in any way. In Govindappa's case, this Court held that the purchaser of a tenanted land from landlord would be an interested person, since he enters the shoes of the landlord. But, in the instant 2 ILR 1998 KAR 2215 29 case, the petitioner purchased the land from the tenant, pending writ proceedings challenging grant of occupancy right. Subsequently, the said occupancy right granted was set aside. Hence, the predecessor of the petitioner could not have sold the subject matter property for want of title.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE kms/mpk CT:bms