Karnataka High Court
Syed Khaja Shamshuddin vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 15 December, 2009
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGER] W.P.No.3553/2004 (LR). C/w W.P.No.10484/2604 (LR) & W.P.No. 1018/2004 (LR) IN W.P.3553/2004; 1. Syed Khaja Shamshtddin ~ S,/o Late Syed Bashiruddin, Age: 54 years, Oce: Agriculture, R/o Raichur Dist.» 2. Shaik Mohammad Aijias S/o. Abdul Ahmed Hussain, ~R/o H.No.2-1- 151. ~ = R/o Andrun Quilla, 3. Mohammad Abdu] Khadir S/o Mohd. Abdul Baqar, _--R/o 20-5-575/1, Shaheebanda, _ Hyderabad. mo ... Petitioners (By Sri Ameet Kumar Desphande, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Revenue Department Vidhana Soudha Bangalore. 2. The Chairman Land Tribuna!] Raichur. 3. Sanna Hanumanitha S/o Moola Iranna, ~ SF Age: Major. Occ: Not known R/o Raichur. a Age: Major. R/o Raichur. | 4. Narasa Reddy $/o Romanna. : 6. Ramanna Since deceased by his LRs. aj Tayamma Wy 0 Late Ramanna Age: 55 years, Oce: Household, _b) Erappa S/o Late Ramanna a Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture. c) Bhimreddy S/o Late Ramanna, . Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture. ~ d) Eranna D/o Late Ramanna : Age: 28 years, Oce: Household, All are R/o Jalal Nagar, Municipality Are, Raichur-584 101. 7. Timmayya S/o Thimmayya, Age: Major, Occ: Not known a) Muddamma W/o Late Lachmanna _ Age about 79 years, O¢e: Household, b) Sumetra S/o Late Lachmannia Age about 59 veers, Oce: Retd, Servant c) Polayya (Paul) S/ 6 Late Lachmanna Age about.57 years. Occ: Retired Servant AU R/9 H.NS. 1-44-71 287/72, Beside P.H.E, Colony, Rampur Road. . Raichur 5841 OL" 9. U. Sanna Ayyalappa S/o Narsappa, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agri., Maddipet, Raichur. - 10. U. Dodda Malleshappa S/o Sanna Ayyalappa, Aged about 36 years, Oce: Agri., Maddipet, Raichur. ll. U. Sanna Malleshappa S/o Sanna Ayyalappa, hy Cc 7 B is =
cb a a Mey a ™ o p 5 js poh) g 2 Bs s 5 seb
13. U, Chennareddy S/o Sanna Ayyalappa, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Agri. Maddipet, Raichur.
14. Smt. Gottumukkala Venkata Padma." W/o G. Shahgirirao, a RT Aged about 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o 1.D.8.M.T. Layout, Raichur, © Dist: Raichur. Sy, a
- os Respondents IBy Sti Mallikarjun Sahuker, GA. for R-2, Sri Harikrishna $ Holla, Advocate ter K-6, Sri Gururaj Joshi, Advocate. for R-7,.3 ({A-C) Sri Gururaj Kakkeri, Advocate for.R-6 {A} (B) & (D)] This Writ. Petition is fled under Articles 226 & 297 of the Consittution | of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 19.1 1.2003 by R2 vide Ann-H.
-- IN.W.P.10484/2004:
Syed Modeen S/o Syed Khameer, _ Muslini, aged about 5] years, . Agriculturist, _ Resident of Raichur.
oe ... Petitioner (3y Sri Venkata Reddy, Advocate) mo ORR AND:
1.
The State of Karnataka Q Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department ee Vidhana Soudha a Bangalore-560 001.
- The Land Tribunal Represented by its Chairman Raichur. *
- Sanna Hanumarithe S/o Late Mulla Iranna, hoo Major, Agriculturist, R/o Raichar oo . Narasa Reddy S/ o-Laté Ramanna Major, A griculturist, R/o Raichur. »~ Major, Agriculti rist R/o Raichur, © :
. 6 Ramanna S/o Chnandanna;
-- Major, Agriculturist, deleted vide court order R/o Raichur. dated 6/8/07.
: Thim avy S /o Thimayya, Major, Agriculturist, R/o Raichur, Lachamanna S/o Thimayya Major, Agriculturist, ~R/o Raichur.
9. The Karnataka Board of Walkfs by its Secretary, Cunningham Road, Bangalore,
10. The Superintendent of Police Raichur District, Raichur.
11. The Circle Inspector of Police .
West Police Station Circle,"
Raichur.
12. The Deputy Commissioner, | ; Raichur District, ne Raichur. -
.. Respondents (By Sri Mallika arjun Sahukar, G. A. for R-1 &R-2, Sri Vardhaman V Gunijal, Advocate for R- 7, Sri Harikrisiina S Holla, Advocate for R-4 & R-8, Sri Guraraj Joshi, Advocate for R-7) a _ This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 7 or rhe © Constitution of India, praying to quash the order : dated 19. 1 2003 passed by R2 vide Annex.A in so far as it relates to the claim of the petitioner for 6 acres 15 oN gunias of land in Survey No. 1476 of Raichur Village.
"rrr STN RE IN W.P, 10181/2004:
BETWEEN:
Khaja Mohinuddin S/o Manje Miyan Since deceased by his LR. Smt. Kulsumbee W/o Khaja Mohinuddin.- - Since deceased by her L.Rs. mo
(a) Shalambee W/o Sved Lal Ahmed.
Aged about 42 years, :
Oce: Agriculture & househald. -- ,
(b) Noorunnissa Begum.
W/o Nawab Jahan Be Aged about 35 years 9.
Oce? Agriculture & household
(c) Shameembanu. ne W/o Mohd. Ehader Pasha Aged about 25 years Occ: Agriculture & household ; () Porveenbh anu W/o Kaisar Pasha
- _ Aged about 23 years Occ: Agriculture & household, AND:
1. The Land Tribunal, Raichur.
By its Secretary.
2. Buddanna 7 Since deceased by his L.Rs.
{a) Shiva Reddy S/o Buddanna. . Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture, 7 R/o Raichur. =
(b) Malleshi 'S,'o Hanuimanna' (alleged grandson of Boodanna) Age: Major, Oce: Agriculture R/o Raicivur, me
3. Malla Eranna 9 Since deceased ky his L.R.s (@) Dodda Hanmantha _., S/o Matla Eranna ~ Since deceased by his L.R.s (} . Savaramma W/o Dedda Hanmantha Gi) Thayappa S/o Dodda Hanmantha
(iii) Gopal S/o Dodda Hanmantha
(iv) Hanumantha
(v) Ramalu S/o Dodda Hanmantha, _ All are majors .~ Residing at Maddipet Ra ich ur.
(b) Sanna Hanmantha »:
S/o Malla Eranna Age. Major, Occ: Agriculture R/o Raichur (Maddipet). :
(c) Ramanna'S /o Haamayya Since deceased. by his L.R. Narasa Reddy S/o Ramanna _ Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture _* R/o.Maddipet, Raichur. id) Narasanna S/o Ramayya _ Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture * R/o Maddipet, Raichur.
_ (6 Hanumantha S/o Budanna Since deceased by his L.R.s 10 a. Ramaswamy S/o Hanumantha b. Sanna Thippa S/o Hanumantha ., d. Srinivas S/o Hanumantha a All are Majors, Agriculturists, R/o Maddipet, Raichur. ~.
() Ramanna S/o Chandranna } S Age: Major, Oce: Agriculture' | deceased & deleted R/o Laxm almmagudi Raichur (vide order dt.14. 12.07 (Maddipet) ©
(g) Tirnayva S/o Tinimavya Age: Major, Occ: Agiiculture R/G.PHE Colony;.Raichur.
-(b)Laxmana S/o Thimmayya, _ Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture _ R/o PHE Colony, Rampur Road, Raichur.
... Respondents os [By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, G.A. for R-1, . Sri Harikrishna S Holla, Advocate for R-3 (A), Sri Gururaj Joshi, Advocate for R-3 (G)] This Writ Petition is filed ulider Articles 226° & 227. of the Constitiud Hon of India, praying to quash the impugned order vide Ann-B mv RL Land | febunal Df, 19.11.2003 and fart her this Mon'ble' OUr.may be Dleased to reject Form No: i fled by the: rPESDOL ne ients. These Writ Petitions somir ig. a2 for final hearin this day, the court made the follow? vag:
'ORDER © These - petitions are direc ted against the second res pendent, 'Tribunals ol dee dated 19.11.2003. The petiti 1oners' arievan ee is. over the rejection of his brother Syed Murtuza : Hussain's claim for the grant of ocon pany Fights in respect of the land micasuring about ey 6S a Acres a AE Sy No. 1476 of Raichur Village.
2. THe learned counsel for the first petit ioner, Sri a wg fon "b oh Been froma iy pou fred fi Jr joe e By rey Jeshpande submits that the petitioner Was' not given an opportunity to adduce his evidence and CTOSs Examine the tenants. He submits that the petitioner's side has produced as Many as 3R documents; the Tribunal is ster: © on the application and & see Stat iS ditto or sarne as found in 4G chump No.9
3. Urging these submuissioris, he prays "for the quashing of the Ter ibuna Vs order and pemer ing the matter to the Trib dal» for fresh "consideration in s a Sti. "Veni cata Redd dy, the learned counsel appes ring for. 'Sri SS Halalli for the petitioner in commected Writ P 'No. 10484/2009 submits that his caaim is in respect of G6 acres 15 guntas of the survey | "number in question, Ne submits that he is a successor * of the Tn andar. The Tribunal has not passed ¢ ny ord of: the Futm No.1 filed by the petitioner.
o. Sri Sanjeev Kumar i Patil, the learned counsel for Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote for the petitioner ig connected Writ Petition No.1018i/2004 submits that although the petitioner was represerited by a counsel, namely, Sri Veerane Gouda who has Hed elaborate 7 written arguments, the sare has. OL been ce consider ed. He submits that the petitioner does net: ktio WW wha Lis the outcome of the Form No. h.
6. Sri Gururaj. Joshi, the earned counsel for the mespondents..7, 8 (a to fc) | and. for the additional has raised a preliminary objection. He submits th at the ics pe titioner's application for the grant of occ pane y rights: is dismissed by the Tribunal by its' order 'date 'is. 07. 1988. The first petitioner himself h has Sona challenged the order. He brings to my
--notic 'e "that the petitioner, his brother and mother had & 'Filed | separate application for the prant of occupancy rights. | The Tribunal's order refusing to grant the ; occupancy rignts was challenged only by the first
- petitioner's mother in W.P. No.22734/1992. The matter was remanded only in respect of some parties. This Court made it clear that in respect of Bodanna, S/o 15 S/o Dodda Hanumayya, Hanumantha, .S/o.Maha Erarma and Hanumantha, S/o -.Buddarna, the dismissal order is confirmed. Thus the. earlier Land :
Tribunal order nas attained fine lity ip respect of some parties.
or
7. Sri Joshi fe rth er rings. to my notice the order dated 03.12.1989 passed by this Court in # Je land mee ISUE ine: '10 acres 20 gunmtas and 6 acres fas ee ies me hs 1G guntas oranited to the said parties. _& Sn Joshi submits that this time the first pe titioner felies on the application form filed by his . prothes, Syed Murtuza Hussain, though Sved Murtuza
-Efussain is mot before this Court.
9. The learned cotnsel takes exception to the conduct of the petitioner in submitting that 'sadar' in Cohimn No.12 in the record of rights means 'ditto' or Z 'same' mi Column No.8. He. submits thatSadlar' i Column No.12 in ov one enly means 'same' :
or 'ditto' in Column Ne.12 of the pre | 'eding years. He brings to my notice the eritries in! 'ohumn No.i2 from 1964 to 1973. onwards. - The ames. neither of the petitioners spor the 'original inamdars are found in Cohimn No. i 2B ,
10. With out prejuc Lidic © fo his contention that the writ petition ca apihot. be "maintain 1d at the instance of a Syad Khaja SE hamisiix iddin, he alsc brings to my notice : : that the petitioner WAS given several opportunities to atiduce the evi | scence ariel also to cross examine the rival os, inamdars and the tenants. He took me through several : deposition copies to show that the petitioner had indeed . _ pros « examined the concerned parties. He also refers to the petitioner's statement, dated 16.09. 1987, wherein ey ne has admitted that Tam mayya, Ramanna, Boddanna, Pe Shivappa, Abrahim and others have been cultivating the. -- lands in question. Having, adniitted / the : act i occupation of cultivation by the other parties, he cannet be aggrieved by the passing of the inipugned order dismissing the claims of himself, his brother arn] his moter.
11. He alse taken. me through the spot-inspection report to .show "thatthe petitioner has act been in occupation. He also. submits that the sketch map is drawn sub-dividing. the land and assigning the sub- ~. Muulbers to different items of properties standing at . Sy.No.1476.. This he brings to my notice while joining issue with Sri Deshpande regarding the demarcating of . the boundary of lands.
12. Srl Sidhapurkar, the learned counsel for the additional respondent respondent No.14) submits that in the Writ Petition No.22724/1992 filed by the petitioner's mother, Smt. B. Janbee, the petition is H. question. He also submits that even before the dismissed as against Hanumanth from whom the respondent No. 14 has purchased 1 acre of land. As the Tribunal's order has attained fi inality 5 he pravs for the > dismissal of the writ petition as against Respondent 13, Sri "Mallikarj un, Sahukar,.the Government Pleader would -s ipport, the Tribunal's order in W.P. cs No.35537 2004, - Hon re ever, ~he submits that the Triburic S order: in 1€ eases of W.P.10 484 /2004 & W.P. o 8 No. LOS i/ 2004 . niaybe quasned, as the Porm No.1 filed. by a ie petitioners therein for the grant of | occupaney rights has remained undecided.
14.
14. tn i the course of his rejoinder submissions, Sri a Despodncde sivbmite that this p stitinyy is fled Hy the fret OSTATIC SilprrTs trist this PC OER BS tueg ii tne first petitioner's capacity as a co-owner of the property in Tribunal if is the first petitioner who was proseci Boe LB the Form No.1 on behalf of lus brother (Sved Murtuza Hussain) and mother (Smt. Janbee}. He wo submit thet this petition being Tribunal proceedings, the petitioner. be. pen prosecute the petition in his' capacky as & the property in question.
15. Sri Ar ect "Kumer "Desnpande further submits that against. the 'Land 'Iribunal's order dated 7.1988, the petit ioner, his mother (S (Smt.Bee Janbee) and bis broth ror (36 aye 6d M urtuza Hussain) had fled an appe eal be fore - the Authority, Kaichur. On the abolition of the Aj on ne 2 . + szete ow a converted mite vn bes i6. The submission urged on behail of the petitioner in W.P.No.3553/2004 that the petitioner was fs 20 not given an opportunity to adduce his . evide | cross examine the claimants, is 7 devoid. of. merits, because the records Snow that } _he WAS given : : niple opportunities to give his evidence "Phe records further reveal that he has iideea cross-examined the tenants. There is no substance in the aricva vance sought to be made out that.there was. no-demarcation of the My indar, f ryt \ The sketch' : map produced shows the ubdividiny. of the land and assigning of the sub- numbers to differen'. pieces of the land stancing on ti = 'Similarly, mo credence cam be given to the "claim of the petitioner that between 1973 and 1986, the petitioner's father's name figured in the column No. 12 of the records of rights. My perusal of the record of rights from 1964 to 1973 reveals that neither the petitioner nor the original Inamdars' names were found therein. The use of the word 'sadar' (ditte or same) are wit! reference to the previous vear and nob w ith reference te. 3 4 solunin No.9, as rightly contended-bs Sri Joshic .
18. The petitioner's grievance of uon-consideration oF 38 documents pr duc ced by hiin before the Tribunal and nor-assigning of any reason ov the Tribunal for rejecting the. petitioner's "application also does not commend Se, AS pomted pul bY Sri Joshi, the petiuioner's application for the grant of occupancy right is dismissed by. the" Tribunal, by its order dated 18.7.1988. Along. w with his mother and brother, no "doubt the petitioner filed the appeal before the Appellate " Authesity, buk he did not file the civil petition seeking its conversion into the writ petition, That the petitioner "prosecuted the case on behalf of his brother and mother
-pefore the Land Twibunal and that is wi! ny he be veep © prosecute his brother's case here does not comment itsel to me. Because, the petitioner's brother is not the petitioner in these writ proceedings. This ft Pa oc Court would have accepted the contefition of. the petitioner, if the cause ttle oft the. wr ib petition wi Fe tO reveal that Sved M urtiza itussein is. the. petitic iorier.:
represented by his bi rother and power of attorney holder, Sri Syed Khaja Shamehisddit,
19. rPhus the pecition 7 as, against the petitioner No.1, Sy ed whaja a amsn uddin i is liable to be dismissed on -the> 'short' ~ con of" 'ocus Sstandi only and accontingy. ie is dismissed. There has been no repres serit ation for oetitioner Nos.2 and 3, Shaikh Mohd. Abas. and Moti. Abdul Kadir. The petition is
- dismissed for d default in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and BAP For, in additional reason pointed out by Sri Siddapurkar, the W.P.No.3553/2004 is lable to be : dism nissed as against the respondent No. 14. Because, "W.P.No.2237% 34/1992 ted by the petitioner's mother Janbee is dismissed as against Hanumanth. From him ; |r the respondent No. 14 has purchased 1 acre of land. rs 23
20. However, the impugned order iB lacking, iy, sustainability as far as the. connectet - anil tions: are concerned, namely - OW. P.No, 10484 [2004 and W.P.No. 10181 /2004. The petitioners ih hot the cases have filed form No. i. ' The. Tribunal hes n ot decided the fate of these app! fic rations: filed 'by the petitioners in W.P_Nos. 10484, £2003 and A tora, 120 04. The petitioners in both theo cases | nave fi filed. Form No.l. The Tribunal has 'not decided uh 1 "ae of these applications filed by the 'pe ctitioners da W.P.Nos, 0484/2004 9 and 10181 12004. - Therefore, the Government Pleader has . Tair ' Or wouled that the Tribunal's order in the sail two ° Ww ci { petit Hons may have to be quashed on the ground of non-consideration of the petitioners' Forms No.1. The irapugne 'd orders are quashed in so far as they pertain 'to them. It is made clear that the im puened orders are left undisturbed vis-a-vis the petitioners in W.P.No.3553/ 2064 for the reasons stated therein above. 24
21. In the result,.... W.P.No.3553/2004 ois :
dismissed. W.P.Nos. 10484/ 2004 and "10 18 7) 2004 are allowed. The Tribunal is, directed to dispose of the Forms Ne. fied by tent. : (the: petitioners in W.P.No. 10484/2004 and 1 18172004) in accordance with law within an outer "irait él four months from today. . No.order as to costs:
owk i