Karnataka High Court
Muniswamappa @ Doddanna vs State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.30369 OF 2017
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.23144 OF 2017, 24109 OF 2017
AND 27409 OF 2017
IN WP NO.30369 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. MR. N. VENKATASWAMAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAPPPA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
2. N. RAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
2(a). SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2(b). SRI. R. THYAGARAJ
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
2(c). SRI. R. KEMPARAJ
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2(d). SRI. R. NANJE GOWDA
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2(e). SRI. R. MAHESH GOWDA
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
3. SHRI. N. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
-2-
4. SHRI. N. RAJANNA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
BYAMMA
W/O LATE SONNAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
5. SHRI. T.S. MUNIRAJAPPA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
6. SHRI. T.S. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
7. SHRI. S. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
DR. N. MUNIRATHNA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
8. DR. NANDINI N.
W/O LATE N MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
9. DR. M. AVINASH
S/O LATE N MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
10. MR. M. RITHESH
S/O LATE N MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. P.B.AJIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORMS
M S BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
-3-
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BENGALURU - 560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION.
3. SHRI. S. VEERANNA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
THIRUMALENAHALLI,
MANDUR POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560049.
4. MR. H. KEMPAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
4(a). SMT. NAGARATHANAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE
SULIBELI HOBLI
HOSKATE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
4(b). SMT. K. VIMALAMMA
W/O JAYARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT KALIDASA MARG
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 009.
4(c). SRI. K. NARAYANGOWDA
S/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
4(d). SMT. K. RADHA
W/O G. NARAYAN GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT MUTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE
KAIWARA HOBLI
CHINTHAMANI TALUK
CHICKABALAPURA DISTRICT.
4(e). RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
4(e)(i). SMT. MAMATHA
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
-4-
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, 2ND 'A' MAIN
AJJAMALAPPA KACHARKANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 084.
4(f). SMT. K. CHANDRIKA
W/O V. SRINIVAS GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT KANIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHICKBALAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
4(g). SMT. RENUKA
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT KALLUKATTA
SRINGERI TALUK
CHICKAMANGALUR DISTRICT.
MUNIBYRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
5. MR. M. RAMANNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
5(a). NARAYANSWAMY
S/O LATE RAMANNA M.,
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
5(a)(i). SMT. MANJULA
W/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5(a)(ii). SRI. GANESH N.
S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
5(b). SRI. MUNIRAJ
S/O LATE M. RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
5(c). SRI. LAKSHMANA GOWDA
S/O LATE M. RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
5(d). SRI. LAKSHMANA MURTHY
S/O LATE M. RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE
CHANARAYAPATANA HOBLI
DEVENAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
-5-
6. SONNAMMA
W/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA
SINCE DECEASED DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THE ABOVE WP
7. MR. SRINIVASA GOWDA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
8. SHRI K. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 7 AND 8 ARE
R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE
DEVENAHALLI TALUK
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
BENGALURU.
9. NANJAPPA @ DODDA NANJAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
9(a). SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE DODDANANJAPPA @ NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
9(b). SRI. BYANNA
S/O LATE DODDANANJAPPA @ NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
9(c). SRI. MUNIRAJU
W/O LATE DODDANANJAPPA @ NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
9(d). NARAYANASWAMY
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
9(d)(i). SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
9(d)(ii). SRI. RAMESHA
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
9(d)(iii). SRI. MADHU
S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.9(a) TO 9(d)(iii)
ARE RESIDING AT
THIRUMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
-6-
MANDOOR POST
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 049.
10. CHIKKANNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
10(a). SRI. NAGARAJAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
10(b). SRI. JAYARAJAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
10(c). SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.10(a) TO 10(c)
ARE RESIDING AT
THIRUMANAHALLI VILLAGE
MANDOOR POST
BANDALORE EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 049.
11. T. KEMPARAJU
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
11(a). SMT. SHANTHAMMA
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
11(b). SMT. MANJULA
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
11(c). SRI. THYAGARAJ G.K.
S/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
11(d). SMT. GEETHA
D/O LATE KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
11(e). SMT. NALINI K.
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
11(f). SUJATHA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
-7-
11(g). SRI. NAVEEN
S/O LATE NARAYANASWMY
11(h). SRI. MANOHAR
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
11(j). MS. SOUMYA
D/O LATE NARAYANASWMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.11(a) TO 11(j)
ARE RESIDING GANAGALOUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.
NOTE: RESPONDENTS NO. 11(f) TO (j)
ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED OLDER
SON OF RESPONDENT NAMELY
NARAYANASWAMY.
12. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE R.M. THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/AT NO.36, REDDIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANTHRAY LAGALI, AGA FOR R1 &R2;
SRI. H.C. SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.V. SUNDARA RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4(a to g) & R11;
SRI. G.B. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 A(i & ii) -d AND
R10 (a to c), R7 AND R8;
SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R11(a, b, d & e);
SRI. C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A. SAMPATH & PUNEETH K., ADVOCATE FOR R11(c, f, g, h &j);
SRI. MOHAN KUMAR D., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
PROPOSED 12 IN I.A. 1/2024)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 22ND MAY, 2017 IN NO.INA.CR/01/1997-98 ON THE FILE OF
THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.,)TALUK, PASSED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.
-8-
IN WP NO.23144 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. H. KEMPAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(a). YASHODAMMA
W/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU.
1(b). K. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY AND
D/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT ATTIBELE BILLAGE
SULEBEL HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
1(c). K. VIMALAMMA
W/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH
D/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
KALIDASA MARG
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU.
1(d). NARAYANA GOWDA
S/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
BAGALOOR, JALA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU.
1(e). K. RADHA
W/O G.NARYANGOWDA
D/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
MATTHAGADAHALLI
KAIVARA HOBLI
CHINTAMANI TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
1(f). MAMATHA
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAGOWDA
D/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.22, II 'A' MAIN
BENGALURU.
-9-
1(g). SMT. K. CHANDRIKA
W/O K.V. SREENIVAS REDDY
D/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT KALLUKATTE
SRINGERI TALUK
CHIKMANGALURU DISTRICT.
1(h). B.K. RENUKA
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
D/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
KANNIGEANAHALLI
CHIKBALLAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ADDITIONAL LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK
BENGALURU.
4. MUNIBYRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
4(a). M. RAMANNA
S/O MUNIBYRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
4(a)(i). SRI. GANESH
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
4(a)(ii). B.R. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
- 10 -
4(a)(iii). SRI. LAKSHMANAGOWDA
S/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
4(a)(iv). SRI. LAKSHAMANAMURTHY
S/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
4(a)(i) TO 4 (a) (iv) ARE
R/AT BUDDIGERE VILLAGE AND POST
CHANNARAYANAPATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
4(b). M. KRISHNAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
4(b)(i). SONNAMMA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
4(b)(ii) AND 4 (b)(iii)
4(b)(ii). SHRI. K. SRINIVAS GOWDA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
4(b)(iii). SHRI K. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
R 4(b)(ii) AND R4 (b)(iii)
ARE R/AT BOODIGERE VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
5. NANJAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
5(a). SONAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
5(a)(i). SMT. BYAYYAMMA
W/O LATE SONNAPPA
5(a)(ii). SHRI T.S. MUNIRAJAPPA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
5(a)(iii). SHRI. T.S. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
5(a)(iv). SHRI. S. VEERANNA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
5(a)(v). SHRI S. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
- 11 -
5 (b). SHRI VENKATASWAMAPPA
S/O N. RAMAIAH
5(c). N. RAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
5(c)(i). SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
5(c)(ii). SHRI. R. THYAGARAJ
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
5(c)(iii). SHRI. R. KEMPARAJU
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5(c)(iv). SHRI R. NENJEGOWDA
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
5(c)(v). SHRI. R. MAHESHGOWDA
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R5(c)(i) TO R5(c)(v) ARE
R/AT THIRUMANAHALLI VILLAGE
MANDUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
VIA VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 049.
5(d). SHRI. N. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
5(e). SHRI. N. RAJANNA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
5(f). N. MUNIRATHNA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
5(f)(a). SMT. NANDHINI
W/O LATE MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5(f)(b). SHRI. M. AVINASH
S/O LATE MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
5(f)(c). SHRI. M. RITESH
S/O LATE MUNIRATHNA
- 12 -
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESPONDNETS NO.5(f)(a) TO 5(f)(c)
ARE R/AT THIRUMALENAHALLI
MANDUR POST
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
6. MUNISWAMAPPA @ DODDANNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
6(a). SHRI NANJAPPA @ DODDANANJAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA @ DODDANNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
6(a)(i). SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE NANJAPPA @ DODDANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
6(a)(ii). SHRI. BYANNA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA @ DODDANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
6(a)(iii). SHRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE NANJAPPA @ DODDANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
6(a)(iv). NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE NANJAPPA @ DODDANANJAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
6(a)(iv)(A). SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
6(a)(iv)(B). SHRI. RAMESHA
S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
6(a)(iv)(C). SHRI. MADHU
S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
6(b). CHIKKANNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
6(b)(i). SHRI. NAGARAJU @ NAGARAJAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
6(b)(ii). SHRI. JAYARAJU
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
- 13 -
6(b)(iii). SHRI. SHEKARA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESPONDNETS NO.6(b)(i) TO
6(b)(iii) ARE RESIDING AT
THIRUMALENAHALLI
MANDUR POST
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
7. T. KEMPARAJU
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
7(a). SMT. SHANTHAMMA
D/O LATE KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
7(b). SMT. MANJULA
D/O LATE KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
7(c). SMT. THYAGARI G.K.
S/O LATE KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
7(d). SMT. GEETHA
D/O LATE KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
7(e). SMT. NALINA
D/O LATE KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
7(f). SMT. SUJATHA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
7(g). SRI. NAVEEN
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
7(h). SRI. MANOHAR
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
7(j). MS. SOWMYA
D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.7(a) TO 7 (j)
ARE RESIDING AT
- 14 -
GANAGALOUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANMANTHRAY LAGALI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. LOHIT R., ADVOCATE FOR R5 (d & e);
SRI. H.C. SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5(a)(iv);
SRI. C.S. PRASANNAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A. SAMPATH & PUNEETH K., ADVOCATES FOR R7(c, f, g, h & j);
SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R7(a, b, d & e);
R4(b) (ii & iii) ARE TREATED AS LRS. OF R4(b) (i) VIDE ORDER
DATED 16.09.2021;
R5(a) (ii &iii) ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R5(a)(i) VIDE ORDER DATED
30.08.2024;
R4(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) Regular bail(ii) &(iii) ARE SERVED;
R5a(ii) (iii) (v) R5B R5(c)(i) TO (v) , R5(f), (a),(b),(c) ARE SERVED;
R6(a)(i) TO (a)(iii), R6 (a)(iv)(a) TO (c) AND R6(b)(i) TO (b)(iii) ARE
SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.05.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 IN PROCEEDINGS BEING INA/CR NO.1/1997-98 INSOFAR AS
DETERMINING THAT THE OCCUPANCY RIGHT OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER IS LIMITED TO ONLY 54 ACRES OF THE SAID LAND AND
IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTION TO THE TAHSILDAR TO TAKE
NECESSARY ACTION FOR RESUMPTION OF THE LAND AND MAKING
NECESSARY ENTRIES IN THE REVENUE RECORDS AS GOVERNMENT
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
IN WP NO.24109 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. MUNISWAMAPPA @ DODDANNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(A). CHIKKANNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(A)(i). SRI. NAGARAJU @ NAGARAJAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
- 15 -
1(A)(ii). SRI. JAYARAJU
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
1(A)(iii). SRI. SHEKARA @ CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1(B). NANJAPPA @ DODDANANJAPPA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA @ DODDANNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(B)(i). CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE DODDANANJAPPA @ NANJAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(B)(ii). SRI. BYANNA
S/O LATE DODDANANJAPPA @ NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
1(B)(iii). SRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE DODDANANJAPPA @ NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1(B)(iv). NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE NANJAPPA @ DODDANANJAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(B)(iv)(a). SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
1(B)(iv)(b). SRI. RAMESHA
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
1(B)(iv)(c). SRI. MADHU
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1(A) & 1(B) LRS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
THIRUMALENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MANDUR POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
VIRGONAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 049.
2. MUNIBYRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
- 16 -
2(A). M. RAMANNAM
S/O LATE MUNIBYRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
2(A)(i)(a). SRI. GANESH
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY @ RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2(A)(ii). SRI. B.R. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2(A)(iii). SRI. LAKSHMANA GOWDA
S/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2(A)(iv). SRI. LAKSHMANA MURTHY
S/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2(B). A.M. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIBYRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
2(B)(i). SONNAMMA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
2(B)(ii). SRI. K. SRINIVASA GOWDA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2(B)(iii). SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.2(A) & 2(B) LRS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BUDIGERE
VILLAGE AND POST
CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 211.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.B. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
- 17 -
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, V FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU- 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
CHAIRMAN-CUM ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
AND BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL., ) TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. H. KEMPAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
3(A). YESHODAMMA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
3(B). SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE,
SULIBELI HOBLI,
HOSKATE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
3(C). SMT. K. VIMALAMMA
W/O JAYARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT KALIDASA MARG
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 009.
3(D). SRI. K. NARAYANAGOWDA
S/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
3(E). SMT. K. RADHA
W/O G. NARAYANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT MUTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT.
3(F)(i). RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
- 18 -
3(F)(ii). SMT. MAMATHA
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, 2ND 'A' MAIN
AJJAMALAPPA KACHARKANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 084.
3(G). SMT. K. CHANDRIKA
W/O V. SRINIVAS GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT KANIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKABALAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3(H). SMT.B.K. RENUKA
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT KALLUKATTA
SRINGERI TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
4. BYAMMA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
4(a). SHRI. T.S.MUNIRAJAPPA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
4(b). SHRI. T.S. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE SONNAPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
4(c). SHRI. S. VEERANNA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
4(d). SHRI. T.S. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5. SHRI. N. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
6. SHRI. N. RAJANNA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
7. SRI N. VENKATASWAMAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
8. N. RAMAIAH
- 19 -
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
8(A). SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
8(B). SRI. R. THYAGARAJ
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
8(C). SRI. R. KEMPARAJU
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
8(D). SRI. R. NANJE GOWDA
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
8(E). SRI. R. MAHESH GOWDA
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
9. N. MUNIRATHNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
9(a). SMT. NANDINI
W/O LATE N. MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
9(b). SRI. M. AVINASH
S/O LATE N. MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
9(c). SRI. M. RITESH
S/O LATE MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 9 ARE R/AT
THIRUMALENAHALLI VILLAGE
MANDUR POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 049.
10. T. KEMPARAJU
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
10(A). NARAYANASWAMY
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
10(A)(i). SMT. SUJATHA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
- 20 -
10(A)(ii). SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
10(A)(iii). SRI. MANOHAR
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
10(A)(iv). SMT. SOWMYA
W/O SRI. MURALI
D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
10(B). SRI. K. THYAGARAJA
S/O LATE KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
ALL ARE RESPONDENTS NO.10(A)(a)(i)
10(A)(a)(iv) & 10(B) ARE RESIDING AT
GANAGALU VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
10(C). SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O M. MOHANRAM
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.48, 2ND CROSS,
SRI. RAMA TEMPLE STREET
COCKSTOWN, JEEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU- 560 005.
10(D). SMT. MANJULA
W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.7/174, GEETHA NILAYA
3RD CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA ROAD
M.V. LAYOUT, HOSKOTE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.
10(E). SMT. GEETHA
W/O LATE N. DEVARAJ
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.7/174, GEETHA NILAYA
3RD CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA ROAD
M.V. LAYOUT, HOSKOTE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.
- 21 -
10(F). SMT. NALINA K.
W/O P. DEVARAJ
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.403,
SRI. BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA
4TH MAIN, 1ST 'A' CROSS
AMARAVATHI NAGARA
BANGARPETE
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 162.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HANAMANTHRAY LAGALI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.V. SUNDARA RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a) TO (h);
SRI. H.C. SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4(C);
SRI. C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R10(A)(i) TO R10(A) (iv) & R10(B);
SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R10(C) (iv) & R10(F);
NOTICE TO R8(A TO E) HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 16.09.2021;
R4(A,B,D) R5, R6 R7, R9(A) TO R(C), R10 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 22ND MAY, 2017 IN NO.INA.CR.01/1997-98 ON THE FILE OF
THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 27409 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. T. KEMPARAJU
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
1(a). SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O M. MOHANRAM
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
1(b). SMT. MANJULA
W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
1(c). SHRI THYAGARAJ G.K.
S/O LATE KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
1(d). SMT. GEETHA
- 22 -
W/O LATE G. DEVARAJ
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
1(e). NALINA
D/O LATE T. KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
1(f). SUJATHA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
1(g). SRI. NAVEEN
S/O LATE NARAYANASWMY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
1(h). SRI. MANOHAR
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
1(i). MS. SOUMYA
D/O LATE NARAYANASWMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
GANAGALOUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.1(C,F,G,H & J);
SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1(A,
B, D &E)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, V FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALURU NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK
BANGALORE BY ITS CHAIRMAN
- 23 -
3. H. KEMPAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
3(a). SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
D/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE,
SULIBELI HOBLI,
HOSKATE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
3(b). SMT. K. VIMALAMMA
W/O JAYARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT KALIDASA MARG
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 009.
3(c). SRI. K. NARAYANAGOWDA
S/O LATE H. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
3(d). SMT. K. RADHA
W/O G. NARAYANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT MUTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
3(e). RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
3(e)(i). SMT. MAMATHA
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, 2ND 'A' MAIN
AJJAMALAPPA KACHARKANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 084.
3(f). SMT. K. CHANDRIKA
W/O SRINIVAS GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT KANIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
- 24 -
3(g). SMT. RENUKA
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT KALLUKATTA
SRINGERI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
4. SRI. M. RAMANNA
S/O LATE MUNIBYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
5. SONNAMMA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
5(a). K. SRINIVAS GOWDA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
5(b). MANJUNATH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
6. SRI. K. SRINIVAS GOWDA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.4 5(A), 5(B) AND 6 ARE R/AT
BOODIGERE VILLAGE
AND POST CHANNARAHYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 001.
7. SRI. K. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
8. SRI. T.S. MUNIRAJAPPA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
9. SRI. T.S. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
10. SRI. S. VEERANNA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
11. SRI. S. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE SONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
- 25 -
12. SRI. VENKATASWAMAPPA
S/O N RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
13. N. RAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
13(a). SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
13(b). SRI. R. THYAGARAJ
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
13(c). SRI. R. KEMPARAJU
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
13(d). SRI. NANJE GOWDA
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
13(e). SRI. R. MAHESH GOWDA
S/O LATE N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT BOODIGERE
VILLAGE AND POST
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
14. SRI.N. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
15. SRI. N. RAJANNA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
16. N. MUNIRATHNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
16(a). SMT. NANDINI
W/O LATE N. MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
16(b). M. GANESH
S/O LATE MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
- 26 -
16(c). M. RITESH
S/O LATE MUNIRATHNA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
THIRUMALENAHALLI VILLAGE
MANDUR POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 049.
17. NANJAPPA @ DODDANANJAPPA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA @ DODDANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
18. CHIKKANNA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
18(a). NAGARAJU
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
18(b). JAYARAJ
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
18(c). SHEKAR
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT THIRUMALLENAHALLI
MANDOOR POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 18 ARE
ALL R/AT
THIRUMALLENAHALLI
MANDOR POST
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-572 001.
19. SREE MALLIKARJUNA DEVASTHANA
AND GURUPEETHALAYA TRUST COMMITTEE
® PUBLIC CHARITABLE DEVAGIRI BRANCH
NELLUR KEMRACHI VILLAGE
SULYA TLAUK, SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT
REP. B ITS PRESIDENT
SRI. SHAMBHU UPADYAYA.
REPRESENTATION GPA HOLDER
- 27 -
SRI. JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN
S/O LATE NARAYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, 1ST MAIN ROAD
2ND STAGE, OKALIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 021.
RESPONDENTS
(by SRI. HANAMANTHRAY LAGALI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. H.C. SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R10;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.V.SUNDARA RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a TO g);
SRI. G.L. VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. P.B. AJIT, ADVOCATE FOR R13(a TO e) AND 16(a) TO (c);
SRI. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING PROPOSED R19 ON IA.
1/2024)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 22ND MAY, 2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN INA.
CR.1/1997-98 WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.,
IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH)
In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging order
dated 22nd May, 2017 passed by the respondent-Assistant
Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division and the
Chairman, Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk in
Case No.INA.CR.01/1997-98.
2. Since the common questions of law and facts are
involved, these Writ Petitions are clubbed together, heard and
- 28 -
disposed of by this common order. The relevant facts for
adjudication of these petitions are as under:
FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. In Writ Petition No.30369 of 2017:
3.1. The case of the petitioners in this writ petition is that
the land bearing Survey Nos.1 to 104 of Chalamakunte, Jala
Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, totally measuring 501 acre 5
guntas (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'schedule land')
was jodi inam land and same was purchased by one Kaveri
Reddy S/o Konda Reddy as per registered Sale Deed dated 16th
July, 1943 (Annexure-A) from one K.P. Ramaiah. The said
Kaveri Reddy had two brothers namely Thimma Reddy, and
Nanja Reddy. It is further pleaded that the entire schedule
land was subject matter of the partition amongst these three
brothers and as such, all the brothers divided the schedule land
into one-third share each and accordingly, 160 acres was
allotted in favour of Kaveri Reddy and 155 acres each was
allotted in favour of his two brothers Thimma Reddy and Nanja
Reddy. Thereafter, the said Kaveri Reddy executed Mortgage
Deed dated 29th November, 1948 (Annexure-B) in favour of
one Munibyrappa in respect of his entire share of 160 acres in
schedule land and also Thimma Reddy had executed registered
- 29 -
Mortgage deed dated 13th October, 1953 (Annexure-C) in
favour of one Nanjappa S/o D. Muniyappa and Nanja Reddy
had executed registered Mortgage Deed dated 09th December,
1953 (Annexure-D) in favour of Nanjappa.
3.2. It is further case of the petitioners that, Kaveri
Reddy, though, had executed the Mortgage Deed dated 29th
November, 1948 as stated above, however, had executed
registered Sale Deed dated 20th June, 1956 (Annexure-E) in
favour of one H. Kempaiah (Petitioner in W.P. No.23144/2017).
Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy had executed registered Sale
Deed dated 19th June, 1958 (Annexure-F) in favour of
Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna.
Petitioners in this petition claims to be the children and grand-
children of late Nanjappa and pleaded that they are in
possession and enjoyment of 310 acres in the schedule land. It
is further pleaded by the petitioners that, before executing the
registered Sale Deed dated 20th June, 1956 in favour of H.
Kempaiah, Kaveri Reddy had submitted an application under
the provisions of Section 6 of Mysore Alienated Villages
(Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950,
seeking permission to sell the land in question and same was
accorded on 17th May, 1956. Similarly, other two brothers of
- 30 -
Kaveri Reddy viz., Nanja Reddy and Thimma Reddy, before
execution of the Sale Deed dated 19th June, 1958, submitted
application before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru,
seeking permission to transfer their share in the schedule land
and same was rejected by order dated 16th April, 1958
(Annexure-G), however, in the said order, it is recorded that,
the permission granted to Kaveri Reddy as per order dated 17th
May, 1956 shall enure to the benefit of his brothers Thimma
Reddy and Nanja Reddy, as the permission was granted to
entire extent of land. It is the case of the petitioners that,
since the land in question is a Jodi Inam land and in view of
promulgation of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams
Abolition Act, 1954, on 15th December, 1956, as the land was
not vested with the Government, as per Section 4 of the said
Act, Nanjappa, Munibyrappa, Muniswamappa @ Doddanna and
H. Kempaiah were in possession of the subject land and as
such, it is contended that, they are entitled for grant of
occupancy right in respect of the subject land. It is further
stated in the petition that, Nanjappa (father of petitioners 1 to
4), Munibyrappa, Muniswamappa @ Doddanna and respondent
No.4-H. Kempaiah had filed application, seeking grant of
occupancy right in respect of the subject land and in
furtherance of the same, the Additional Special Deputy
- 31 -
Commissioner for Inams Abolition, by order dated 27th October,
1964, registered Sri. H. Kempaiah (respondent No.4) alone as
occupant under Section 9 of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, and rejected the
application made by Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and
Muniswamappa @ Doddanna. Being aggrieved by the same,
Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna have
filed Appeal No.1669/1965-66 before the Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and the said appeal was allowed,
by order dated 13th December, 1966 (Annexure-J1) and as
such, matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner
for fresh consideration. After remand, the Special Deputy
Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru, by order dated
23rd October, 1967 (Annexure-H), granted occupancy right in
favour of H. Kempaiah (respondent No.4). Being aggrieved by
the same, Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa @
Doddanna had filed Appeal No.463/1968-69 before the Mysore
Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and the said appeal was
disposed of on 25th May, 1970 (Annexure-J2) by confirming the
occupancy right granted in favour of H. Kempaiah (respondent
No.4) to an extent of 160 acres and remaining extent of 260
acres granted in favour of Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and
Muniswamappa @ Doddanna. Thereafter, Writ Petition
- 32 -
No.2402 of 1970 was filed by H. Kempaiah (respondent No.4),
challenging the order passed in Appeal No.463/1968-69 and
this Court, by order dated 01st March, 1974, set aside the order
passed in Appeal No.463/1968-69 and matter was remanded
back to Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal for fresh
consideration. Upon remand made by this Court, Karnataka
Revenue Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 18th December,
1974 (Annexure-J3) in Appeal No.463/1968-69, further
remanded the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for
fresh disposal. Thereafter, by order dated 31st July, 1976
(Annexure-J4), the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition
of Inams in Case No.200/1963-64, had registered H. Kempaiah
(respondent No.4) as an occupant. The said order was
challenged by Munibyrappa and legal representatives of late
Nanjappa in Appeal No.127/1977 before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and the Tribunal vide order dated
03rd June, 1981, dismissed the same and granted occupancy
right in favour of H. Kempaiah (respondent No.4). Being
aggrieved by the same, Munibyrappa and legal representatives
of Nanjappa had filed Writ Petition Nos.33954 of 1982 and
41207 of 1982 before this Court and this Court, by order dated
26th February, 1985 (Annexure-J6), set aside the order passed
by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as well as the Special
- 33 -
Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Special
Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. During the said
period, legal representatives of Nanjappa and late Munibyrappa
had filed Writ Petition No.24912 of 1994, seeking direction to
the Land Tribunal to decide the case No.200/1963-64 in
relation to Survey Nos.1 to 102 of Jodi Chalamakunte Village
and this Court, by order dated 21st September, 1994
(Annexure-K), disposed of the writ petition with a direction to
the Land Tribunal to search for records and dispose of the case
at the earliest within an outer limit of three months. It is also
pleaded that, the petitioners have filed contempt proceedings
before this Court. It is further averred in the writ petition that,
as per the undertaking given in the said matter, direction was
issued to dispose of the applications. Thereafter, the Land
Tribunal, by order dated 21st May, 2013 (Annexure-L), rejected
the claim made by H. Kempaiah (respondent No.4), legal
representatives of Munibyrappa, legal representatives of
Nanjappa and legal representatives of Muniswamappa @
Doddanna. Being aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition
No.23427 of 2013 connected with Writ Petition Nos.23442,
27372-73, 24698, 24145 and 22456 of 2013 were filed before
this Court, and this Court by order dated 21st August, 2014
(Annexure-M), disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to
- 34 -
the Land Tribunal to dispose of the proceedings on merits.
Thereafter, on remand made by this Court, the Land Tribunal,
by order dated 22nd May, 2017 (Annexure-N) in Case
No.INA.CR.01/1997-98, granted occupancy right to an extent
of 54 acres of 'D' Class land in Survey Nos.1 to 104 of
Chalamakunte Village, in favour of H. Kempaiah (respondent
No.4), however, rejected the claim made by the legal
representatives of Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa
@ Doddanna. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22nd
May, 2017 (Annexure-N), the petitioners preferred this writ
petition.
4. In Writ Petition No.23144 of 2017:
4.1. This writ petition is filed by H. Kempaiah, challenging
the order dated 22nd May, 2017 (Annexure-A) passed by the
respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-
Division and Chairman, Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North
(Additional) Taluk in Case No.INA.CR.01/1997-98, being
aggrieved of granting to an extent of only 54 acres of 'D' class
land out of 501 acre 5 guntas of land in Survey Nos.1 to 104
situate at Chalamakunte village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk. It is averred in the petition that, one K.P. Ramaiah was
owner of the schedule land and he sold the entire extent of 501
- 35 -
acre 5 guntas to one Kaveri Reddy S/o Konda Reddy as per
registered Sale Deed dated 16th July, 1943 (Annexure-B). It is
also averred that, the subject matter of the land is 'reserved
land' as per the provisions of Mysore Alienated Villages
(Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950.
It is further stated that, Section 6(1) of the above Act
mandates prior permission to make any transaction in respect
of the land in question and as such, the said Kaveri Reddy
made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, seeking
permission to alienate the schedule land and same came to be
allowed on 17th May, 1956 (Annexure-C). Thereafter, having
obtained the permission to transact with the land in question,
Kaveri Reddy sold the land in question as per registered Sale
Deed dated 25th June, 1956 (Annexure-D) to the petitioner-H.
Kempaiah. It is also averred in the writ petition that, in view of
notifying Inams Abolition Act by the Government, on 01st
February, 1959, the schedule land stood vested with the
Government and as such, the petitioner-H. Kempaiah made an
application seeking registration as an occupant.
4.2. It is further pleaded that the respondent-Authorities
have passed various orders, resulting in challenging such
- 36 -
orders before this Court in Writ Petition No.2402 of 1970 and
this Court, by Order dated 01st March, 1974 (Annexure-E),
allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Land
Tribunal to re-consider the case of the parties afresh.
Thereafter, on remand made by this Court, the Land Tribunal,
by its order dated 21st May, 2013 (Annexure-F), rejected the
claim made by the petitioner-H. Kempaiah and being aggrieved
by the same, petitioner has approached this Court in Writ
Petition No.22456 of 2013. This Court by Order dated 21st
August, 2014 (Annexure-G), remanded the matter to the Land
Tribunal to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Thereafter, the Land Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned
order dated 22nd May, 2017 (Annexure-A) in INA.CR.01/1997-
98, holding that the petitioner-H. Kempaiah alone is entitled to
the land in question, however, restricted the grant to an extent
of only 54 acres of 'D' Class as against total extent of schedule
land as claimed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same,
the petitioners have presented this writ petition.
5. In Writ Petition No.24109 of 2017:
5.1 In this writ petition, petitioners are the legal
representatives of Muniswamappa @ Doddanna and
Munibyrappa, have challenged order dated 22nd May, 2017
- 37 -
(Annexure-S) passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru North Sub-Division and Chairman, Land Tribunal,
Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk in Case
No.INA.CR.01/1997-98. It is the case of the petitioners that
the land bearing Survey Nos.1 to 104 of Jodi Chalamakunte
Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, totally measuring 501 acre 5
guntas was a Jodi Inam land purchased by one Kaveri Reddy
S/o Konda Reddy as per registered Sale Deed dated 16th July,
1943 (Annexure-A). It is further averred that, the said Kaveri
Reddy and his two brothers viz., Thimma Reddy and Nanja
Reddy were in occupation of the schedule land and in an oral
partition, all the three brothers, partitioned the same and were
allotted one-third share each in the subject land. It is also
pleaded that, Kaveri Reddy was allotted 160 acres and Thimma
Reddy and Nanja Reddy were allotted 155 acres each. It is
further stated that, Kaveri Reddy executed Mortgage Deed
dated 29th November, 1948 (Annexure-B) in favour of
Munibyrappa. Further, Thimma Reddy executed Mortgage Deed
dated 13th October, 1953 (Annexure-C) in favour of one
Nanjappa S/o Dodda Muniyappa. Similarly, Sri. Nanja Reddy
executed Mortgage deed dated 09th December, 1953
(Annexure-D) in favour of Nanjappa.
- 38 -
5.2. It is the case of petitioners that the partition
between the brothers of Kaveri Reddy reflected in the Mortgage
Deed and therefore, the partition has been acted upon by all
the three brothers including Kaveri Reddy. The grievance of the
petitioners is that, despite the partition of the subject land,
Kaveri Reddy sold the entire extent in favour of the respondent
No.3-H. Kempaiah as per registered Sale Deed dated 20th June,
1956 (Annexure-E) and on the other hand, the brothers of the
Kaveri Reddy viz., Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy, who had
acquired two-third interest in the schedule land, sold their
interest vide registered Sale Deed dated 19th June, 1958
(Annexure-F) in favour of one Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and
Muniswamappa @ Doddanna.
5.3. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that, Kaveri
Reddy, before executing the registered Sale Deed dated 20th
June, 1956 (Annexure-E) had made an application under the
provisions of Section 6 of Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection
of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950, seeking
permission to transfer the land and same was accorded on 17th
May, 1956. It is also stated that brothers of Kaveri Reddy viz.,
Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy, have made similar
application, seeking permission to transfer their two-third
- 39 -
interest in respect of the subject land before the execution of
Sale Deed dated 19th June, 1958 (Annexure-F) and the said
application was rejected by order dated 16th April, 1958 before
the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District on the ground
that the permission has already been granted to Kaveri Reddy
in respect of entire extent of land. Therefore, it is the
contention of petitioners that the said permission granted on
17th May, 1956 in favour of Kaveri Reddy shall enure to the
benefit of Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy insofar as their
share of 310 acres of land sold in favour of Nanjappa,
Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna as per
registered Sale Deed dated 19th June, 1958 (Annexure-F). It
is further pleaded by the petitioners that the schedule land
being a Jodi Inam land, after promulgation of Mysore Inams
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Abolition Act, 1954 and upon
issuance of the Notification thereunder, the land vested with
Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna and
the respondent No.3-H. Kempaiah and not with the State
Government as they were in possession of the schedule land.
It is stated that, Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa @
Doddanna submitted their application within the prescribed
time under the provisions of Mysore Inams (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Abolition Act, 1954, seeking grant of occupancy
- 40 -
right in respect of the subject matter of the land. The
respondent No.3-H. Kempaiah also filed a similar application
and the Special Tahsildar of Inam Abolition, Bengaluru
conducted an enquiry and filed report to the Additional Special
Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition on 27th October,
1964. The Additional Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams
Abolition, Bengaluru in Case No.200/1963-64, by order dated
27th October, 1964 conferred occupancy right in favour of the
respondent No.3-H. Kempaiah, however, rejected the
application of Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa.
Being aggrieved by the same, Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and
Muniswamappa have filed Appeal No.1669/1965-66 before the
Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and by order dated 13th
December, 1966 (Annexure-J1), the said appeal was allowed,
remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh
disposal after conducting formal enquiry.
5.4. It is also stated in the writ petition that, ultimately
the matter had reached this Court in Writ Petition No.23427 of
2013 and connected petitions and this Court, by order dated
21st August, 2014 (Annexure-Q), remanded the matter to the
Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. It is the grievance of the
petitioners that, the non-registration of their occupancy right by
- 41 -
the Land Tribunal after remand made by this Court and passing
of impugned order dated 22nd May, 2017 (Annexure-S) in case
No.INA.CR.01/1997-98 is contrary to law and disregarding the
observation made by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.23427 of
2013 and connected petitions. Therefore, the petitioners have
presented this writ petition.
6. In Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017:
6.1. In this writ petition, petitioners have stated that the
land bearing Survey Nos.1 to 104 of Chalamakunte village is a
jodi village and K.P. Ramaiah was the Jodidar, who sold the
entire extent of land to Kaveri Reddy as per registered Sale
Deed dated 16th July, 1943 and thereafter, there was a
partition in the family of Kaveri Reddy and as such, 160 acres
was allotted in favour of Kaveri Reddy and the remaining extent
was shared by the brothers of Kaveri Reddy viz., Nanja Reddy
and Thimma Reddy. Kaveri Reddy had executed Mortgage
deed 29th November, 1948 in favour of Munibyrappa
(Annexure-A). It is stated that, Kaveri Reddy has purchased
Casurina Trees from one Doddaiah however, failed to pay the
consideration amount and as such, the said Doddaiah had filed
Original Suit No.93 of 1953 against Kaveri Reddy. In the said
suit, the land to an extent of 160 acres was attached before
- 42 -
judgment and the suit was decreed on 11th December, 1954
(Annexure-B). The entire land attached was brought for Public
Auction in Execution Petition No.151 of 1964 and said Doddaiah
had purchased the entire extent of 160 acres for sum of
Rs.1442.23 and sale was confirmed and accordingly, Sale
Certificate was issued on 19th August, 1966 (Annexure-C).
6.2. It is further pleaded that, the said Doddaiah sold the
entire extent of land to the petitioner-T. Kemparaju as per
registered Sale Deed dated 21st March, 1968 (Annexure-D).
The petitioner-T. Kemparaju has initiated proceedings for
transfer of Khata in his favour and has filed an application
seeking re-grant of the service inam land, however, he could
not pursue the same. The entire file relating to the re-grant of
service inam land was destroyed in a fire and the Government
has reconstructed the documents as per Circular dated 29th
September, 1981 (Annexure-F). Thereafter, the petitioner-T.
Kemparaju made an application to implead himself in a
proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and same was
rejected on 01st October, 2003. Being aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner-T. Kemparaju has approached Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1035/2004 and said appeal was
allowed on 15th November, 2005 (Annexure-G). The said order
- 43 -
was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.3820 of
2006 by some of the respondents herein, which came to be
dismissed by order dated 21st June, 2006 (Annexure-H).
6.3. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that the
petitioner-T. Kemparaju came to know about the application
made by Kaveri Reddy, seeking permission from the Deputy
Commissioner to sell the entire extent of land and same was
accorded on 17th May, 1956 and the similar application made
by other two brothers of Kaveri Reddy was rejected. It is
further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner-T.
Kemparaju was arraigned as petitioner/claimant No.5 in Case
No.INA.CR.01/1997-98 and has filed claim statement stating
that the share of Kaveri Reddy has been attached as per the
judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.93 of 1953 and
brought to Auction in Execution Petition No.151 of 1964. It is
the grievance of the petitioners that the Land Tribunal,
Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Bengaluru passed the
impugned order dated 22nd May, 2017 (Annexure-K), without
considering the fact that the land in question was attached
before judgment in Original Suit No.93 of 1953 and further the
order passed by the Execution Court in Execution Petition
No.151 of 1964 has reached finality as the same was not
- 44 -
challenged before the Competent Appellate Court. Therefore,
the legal representatives of T. Kemparaju have presented this
writ petition challenging the order dated 22nd May, 2017
(Annexure-K).
7. After service of notice, respondents entered
appearance. It is pertinent to state that some of the
respondents are the petitioners in the connected writ petitions.
Learned Additional Government Advocate produced the original
records.
8. I have heard Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, learned Senior
Counsel on behalf of Sri. P.B. Ajit, appearing for petitioners in
Writ Petition No.30369 of 2017; Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned
Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Sundara Raman M.V.,
appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No.23144 of 2017; Sri.
G.B. Manjunatha, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in
Writ Petition No.24109 of 2017; Sri. C.S. Prasanna Kumar,
learned counsel on behalf of Sri. A. Sampath, appearing for the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017; and Sri.
Hanumantaraya Lagali, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government.
ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS:
- 45 -
9. Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.30369 of 2017
contended that, Kaveri Reddy had purchased the entire extent
of land from one K.P. Ramaiah for a valuable consideration and
thereafter, a partition took place amongst Kaveri Reddy and his
two brothers viz., Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy and in the
said partition, brothers of Kaveri Reddy were allotted an extent
of 155 acres each on Southern side and Kaveri Reddy got 160
acres on Northern side of the schedule land. He further
contended that, Kaveri Reddy had mortgaged his share to one
Munibyrappa by way of registered Mortgage Deed dated 29th
November, 1948 and in the said mortgage deed, details of
partition took place between Kaveri Reddy and his brothers has
been reflected. He further contended that, Thimma Reddy had
mortgaged his share to one Nanjappa S/o D. Muniyappa by way
of registered Mortgage Deed dated 13th October, 1953 and
similarly, another brother of Kaveri Reddy viz., Nanjareddy
mortgaged his share to Nanjappa by way of registered
Mortgage Deed dated 09th December, 1953. He further
contended that Kaveri Reddy had sold the entire extent of
schedule land in favour of H. Kempaiah by colluding with him,
suppressing the fact of partition and the Mortgage Deed dated
29th November, 1948 made in favour of Munibyrappa. Learned
- 46 -
Senior Counsel Sri. G.L. Vishwanth further, contended that the
purchaser-H. Kempaiah (Petitioner in W.P.No.23144 of 2017),
has no legal right to claim the entire extent of schedule land.
He also invited the attention of the Court to Original Suit No.93
of 1953 filed by one Doddaiah, seeking decree of 160 acres of
land belonging to Kaveri Reddy, which came to be purchased
by T. Kemparaju (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017).
He further contended that, Kaveri Reddy, sought for permission
from the Deputy Commissioner to sell the schedule land under
Section 6 of the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of
Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950 and same was
granted to Kaveri Reddy, however, similar permission sought
for by the brothers of Kaveri Reddy viz., Thimma Reddy and
Nanja Reddy came to be rejected on 16th April, 1958. He also
submitted that, on 19th June, 1958, Nanjappa, Munibyrappa
and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna had jointly purchased the
entire extent of 310 acres belonging to Thimma Reddy and
Nanja Reddy i.e., two-third share of schedule land and the
schedule land is situate in jodi Chalamakunte village. Upon
promulgation of the Notification of new Act i.e., Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the
Revision Petition No.8/1959 filed by Thimma Reddy and Nanja
Reddy was rejected on 20th February, 1959. He also submitted
- 47 -
that the purchasers of the two-third share of the schedule land
from Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy i.e., Nanjappa,
Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna, jointly filed
application under Section 9 of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, seeking occupancy
right and same was clubbed together in case No.200/1963-64.
The Tribunal, by order dated 13th December, 1966, rejected the
application and further the Special Deputy Commissioner for
Inams Abolition, by order dated 23rd October, 1967, granted
occupancy right in favour of H. Kempaiah (Petitioner in W.P.
No.23144 of 2017) and rejected the remaining applications.
The said order of rejection was questioned by Nanjappa,
Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna before the
Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal
No.463/1968 and the Tribunal, by order dated 25th May, 1970,
modified the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner
for Inams Abolition dated 23rd October, 1967 and granted 260
acres jointly in favour of Nanjappa, Muniswamappa @
Doddanna and Munibyrappa and 160 acres to H. Kempaiah.
The said order was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition
No.2402 of 1970 and this Court, by order dated 01st March,
1974, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand, the Karnataka
- 48 -
Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru by order dated 18th December,
1974, further remanded the matter to the original authority
viz., Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition for fresh
consideration. The Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition
of Inams, by order dated 31st July, 1976, granted occupancy
right to H. Kempaiah and rejected the claim made by other
claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful
claimants filed Appeal No.127 of 1977 before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru which came to be dismissed on
03rd June, 1981 and the same was questioned before this Court
in Writ Petition Nos.33954 of 1982 and connected petitions.
This Court, by order dated 26th February, 1985, remanded the
matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh enquiry.
Thereafter, the Tribunal, by order dated 21st May, 2013,
rejected the claim of all the applicants and directed the
Tahsildar to take over the land to the State by evicting the
persons in occupation. The said order dated 21st May, 2013
was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.23427 of
2013 and connected petitions and this Court, by order dated
21st August, 2014, remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal
for fresh consideration. On remand made by this Court, the
parties appeared before the Tribunal and the Land Tribunal, by
order dated 22nd May, 2017 in Case No.INA.CR.01/1997-98,
- 49 -
granted an extent of 54 acres of 'D' class land in Survey Nos.1
to 104 situate at Chalamakunte Village in favour of H.
Kempaiah, however rejected the claim made by other claimants
and as such, Sri. G. L. Vishwanath, leaned Senior Counsel
submitted that, on this foundation, these writ petitioners are
before this court.
10. Referring to the aforementioned factual aspects on
record, Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, learned Senior Counsel argued
that the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950 was published on 05th
October, 1950 as a temporary protection of tenants in alienated
villages and was in force up to 31st December, 1957 and
therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal, rejecting the
application made by the predecessor of the petitioners is
incorrect. Insofar as the finding recorded by the respondent-
Land Tribunal that the lands were reserved lands and in this
regard learned Senior Counsel Sri. G.L. Vishwanath submitted
that "reserved land" is not defined under any Acts which are in
force as on today. However, Section 2(2) of the Mysore
Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act, 1950 defines "reserved land" and while inviting
the attention of various provisions of the said Act, learned
- 50 -
Senior Counsel submitted that the intention of the legislature
that the said enactment was for a shorter duration to protect
against eviction of tenants in alienated villages and not to
deprive the tenants of the usual amenities inter alia to provide
for control of alienation of reserved land and of the land in the
possession of tenants and therefore, as the said enactment
ceases to exist from the year-1958, no authority can apply the
provisions of the Act to any transaction and in this regard, the
finding recorded by the respondent-Tribunal as 'reserved land'
is misconception and same is liable to be rejected.
11. Sri. C.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for petitioners in Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017 argued that
the respondent-Land Tribunal failed to consider that the
petitioner-T. Kemparaju got right over the land in question as
per the Sale Certificate issued by the Munsiff Court, Bengaluru,
in Execution Petition No.151 of 1964 in favour of one Doddaiah,
who had filed suit for recovery of money against Kaveri Reddy
in Original Suit No.93 of 1953 and got land in question attached
on 31st August, 1953 and the said suit was decreed on 11th
December, 1954. He further contended that the petitioner-T.
Kemparaju purchased the schedule property from the said
Doddaiah and in this regard, he refers to the proceedings in
- 51 -
Original Suit No.93 of 1953 and Execution Petition No.151 of
1964 and contended that the entire extent of land of 494.25
acres in Survey Nos.1 to 104 is a jodi inam land belongs to K.P.
Ramaiah who had sold in favour of Kaveri Reddy, from whom
Doddaiah purchased an extent of 160 acres in pursuance of a
Court Auction as stated above. He further refers to mortgage
deed said to have been made by Kaveri Reddy dated 29th
November, 1948 in favour of one Munibyrappa and execution of
Sale deed dated 20th June, 1956 in favour of H. Kempaiah and
contended that the respondent-Land Tribunal ought to have
considered that the share of Kaveri Reddy was to an extent of
160 acres only and same was the subject matter in Original
Suit No.93 of 1953 which was sold by Doddaiah in favour of T.
Kemparaju and the said extent of land in question was attached
before judgment and same was culminated in a court auction
by virtue of decree being passed, which ended in issuing of
Sale Certificate in favour of Doddaiah, being a successful
bidder. He also refers to the several rounds of litigation before
the Land Tribunal and this Court and argued that the records
before the Deputy Commissioner were destroyed on account of
fire and the file was reconstructed as per Circular dated 29th
September, 1981. He further contended that, the application
filed by T. Kemparaju seeking re-grant was not traced on
- 52 -
account of destroying of the entire records as well as
misplacement of records by the respondent-Land Tribunal and
the said aspect has not been properly assessed by the
respondent-Tribunal, while passing the impugned order and
arrived at a conclusion that, T. Kemparaju has not filed
application seeking re-grant, is totally unacceptable and
untenable finding recorded by the respondent-Land Tribunal.
He further submitted that respondent-Land Tribunal has not
made any effort to trace the application made by T. Kemparaju,
seeking re-grant of land, despite the direction issued by this
Court in the writ petition, which is perse, violation of the order
passed by this court.
12. Nextly, it is contended by Sri. C.S. Prasanna Kumar,
learned counsel that, the Mortgage Deed dated 29th November,
1948 executed by Kaveri Reddy in favour of Munibyrappa was
much before the coming into force of Mysore Alienated Villages
(Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950
and therefore, Section 6 has no application to the said
transaction. Therefore, he contended that the observation
made in the impugned order that the mortgage is without
permission as mandated under Section 6 of the Mysore
Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous
- 53 -
Provisions) Act, 1950, is an erroneous finding, which requires
to be set aside. He further contended that, vesting of lands
under the Inams Abolition Act is not to extinguish the rights of
the parties nor the intention of the Legislature that, the land to
be appropriated by the Government and on the other hand, the
land is to be re-granted in favour of a person who is cultivating
the land in question through proper acquisition. In this
connection, he contended that, after vesting of the lands, the
State Government has to identify the persons who are entitled
for re-grant of such lands in which right is vested with the
persons who are entitled for re-grant and therefore, he
contended that, these principles cannot be brushed aside on
technical ground by the respondent-Land Tribunal in the
impugned order. Sri. C.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel
invited the attention of the Court to Section 10 of the Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and
submitted that the said provision does not confer wide powers
to the respondent-Land Tribunal, however the powers are
restricted to go into the application relating to the details of the
subject land inter alia, earlier Inamdar and nature of his rights
over the land in question and in that aspect, the application
seeking re-grant is to be made in favour of such applicant. In
this backdrop, learned counsel Sri. C.S. Prasanna Kumar
- 54 -
submitted that the powers of the Assistant Commissioner to
confer occupancy rights and to declare the applicant as Khadim
Tenant is wider in nature and therefore, the finding recorded by
the respondent-Land Tribunal is required to be set-aside in this
writ petition.
13. Referring to the finding recorded by the respondent-
Land Tribunal that the sale made in favour of Doddaiah-vendor
of T. Kemparaju, is without the permission under Section 6 of
Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950, is totally erroneous and
sale is after the promulgation of notification vesting the land in
state, having come into force of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and are supported by
the documents on record. In this regard, he refers to the
provisions under Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of
Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950 and submitted
that the said Act was in force till 31st December, 1957 and the
said Act was in force for short stipulated period only and the
said aspect was ignored by the respondent-Land Tribunal, while
passing the impugned order. He also contended that the
finding recorded by the respondent-Land Tribunal that the
mortgage made by Kaveri Reddy in favour of Munibyrappa was
- 55 -
void, as no impact of granting relief to the petitioner as the said
Munibyrappa never enforced the mortgage during his lifetime.
Even, assuming that the mortgage must be taken into
consideration for re-grant of land in favour of T. Kemparaju, is
concerned and the said mortgage deed was executed on 29th
November, 1948, which was much before the commencement
of the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950 i.e., on 05th October, 1950
and therefore, same does not violate any of the provisions of
the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950. Emphasising on these
aspects, he submitted that the transaction in favour of the
Doddaiah or T. Kemparaju, being beyond the period of the said
legislation and therefore, the Mysore Alienated Villages
(Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950
has no application to the case on hand. Referring to the finding
recorded by the respondent-Land Tribunal, Sri. C.S. Prasanna
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-T.
Kemparaju submitted that the land purchased by the petitioner
was subject matter in attachment order in Original Suit No.93
of 1953 on 31st August, 1953, and as per Section 64 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, any sale after the order of attachment
is void. Referring to the provision under Section 64 of the Code
- 56 -
of Civil Procedure, Sri. C.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel
submitted that the sale made in favour of H. Kempaiah is void
and therefore, the writ petition No.23144 of 2017 is liable to be
dismissed by allowing the Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017. To
sum-up his arguments, Sri. C.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned
counsel submitted that,T. Kemparaju had purchased 160 acres
from Doddaiah who has purchased the same in a Court Auction
and therefore, a sanctity be granted to the auction purchaser in
a Court proceedings. Accordingly, he sought for interference of
this Court.
14. To buttress his arguments, Sri. C.S. Prasanna
Kumar, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of TEEKA AND OTHERS vs. STATE
OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in AIR 1961 SC 803 and
contended that, where the property is legally attached by the
Court, the possession of the same shall pass to the Court or its
agents and therefore, he contended that the schedule land has
been auctioned in a Court proceedings and transferred to
Doddaiah (vendor of T. Kemparaju) and therefore, the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017 entitled for relief
from this court.
- 57 -
15. Sri. G.B. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners in Writ Petition No.24109 of 2017 argued in the
lines of Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for petitioners in Writ Petition No.30369 of 2017. He further
argued that, Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants
and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950 is not applicable to the
case on hand as the transactions affected are pursuant to 01st
January, 1958. Therefore, he submitted that the finding
recorded by the respondent-Land Tribunal requires to be set-
aside. He also submitted that the land in question is a reserved
land or not, cannot be gone into at this stage as the R.T.C.
extracts produced by the petitioners makes it clear that the
land in question is in possession of the petitioners. He further
emphasised that the respondent-Government has not produced
any record to consider the land in question as a reserved land.
Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. It is the
specific contention of learned counsel Sri. G.B. Manjunatha
that, H. Kempaiah was the Member of the Land Tribunal for
more than two decades and on his behest, grant has been
made in his favour. The said aspect has been overlooked by the
respondent-Land Tribunal, while passing the impugned order.
Accordingly, he sought for setting aside the impugned order
passed by the respondent-Land Tribunal.
- 58 -
16. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No.23144 of 2017
argued that the land being a 'reserved land' and as such,
permission of the Deputy Commissioner was mandatory as per
Section 6 of Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants
and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950 and therefore, he
contended that, Kaveri Reddy has made an application, seeking
permission to transact with the schedule land and same was
accorded by the Deputy Commissioner. On such permission
granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaveri Reddy executed
Sale Deed in favour of H. Kempaiah (Petitioner in W.P.
No.23144 of 2017) and therefore, the finding recorded by the
respondent-Land Tribunal is just and proper, however, the
grievance of the petitioner-H. Kempaiah is only that the
respondent-Tribunal while, passing the impugned order,
restricted the grant of land made in favour of H. Kempaiah is
without application of mind, and without jurisdiction on the part
of the respondent-Land Tribunal. Therefore, learned Senior
Counsel Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa sought for interference of this
Court. He further contended that, H. Kempaiah had purchased
entire extent of schedule land from Kaveri Reddy and as such,
he is entitled to get re-grant of the entire extent of schedule
land. He further contended that, none of the petitioners in
- 59 -
connected writ petitions have challenged the Sale Deed made
in favour of H. Kempaiah and therefore, the respondent-Land
Tribunal ought to have granted entire extent of land in favour
of H. Kempaiah. He also refers to Section 10(3)(a) and (b) of
the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act,
1954 and contended that the as land in question was vested
with the Government after the promulgation of the Act and as
such, Doddaiah, the predecessor in title of the petitioner-T.
Kemparaju in Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017 and other
petitioners have not made an application seeking grant of
occupancy rights or re-grant of schedule land and further, even
if, the same is considered and as such, an application is made,
having made on 18th October, 2000 is barred by time in terms
of Section 10(3)(i) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and therefore, the petitioners in
other writ petitions have no claim in the schedule land. He
further contended that the petitioner-T. Kemparaju in Writ
Petition No.27409 of 2017 cannot claim right over the property
as the mortgage made in favour of Doddaiah is hit by Section 6
of the (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,
1950 and therefore, as the said Doddaiah had no right to claim
in respect of the subject land and the suit filed by him itself is
- 60 -
not maintainable and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the
said writ petition.
17. Insofar as the claim made by the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.30369 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.24109 of 2017,
Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel submitted that
the predecessor of the petitioners claiming right based on the
Palupatti said to have been executed amongst the brothers of
Kaveri Reddy, however, there is no Palupatti being produced by
either of the parties, evidencing the existence of the partition
deed. Therefore, sought for dismissal of Writ Petition
Nos.30369 of 2017 and 24109 of 2017.
18. Sri. Hanumantaraya Lagali, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-
Government submitted that, as per the records, reserved lands
are land bearing Survey No.18 measuring 4 acre 23 guntas,
Survey No.52 measuring 2 acre 19 guntas and Survey No.78
measuring 10 acre 23 guntas. He further contended that the
respondent-Land Tribunal, after considering the direction issued
by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, has passed the
impugned order, which requires to be confirmed in these writ
petitions.
- 61 -
CONSIDERATION:
19. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, though the petitioners in Writ
Petition Nos.30369 of 2017, 24109 of 2017 and 27409 of 2017
have challenged the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2017
passed in case No.INA.CR.01/1997-98, rejecting their claim
made before the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North (Additional)
Taluk, these three writ petitions have to be discussed together
to determine the rights of the petitioners. Insofar as Writ
Petition No.23144 of 2017, is concerned the claim made by the
petitioner-H. Kempaiah before the Land Tribunal was allowed to
an extent of 54 acres as against the claim made by him to an
extent of 501 acre 5 guntas and the Land Tribunal accepted the
registered Sale Deed dated 20th June, 1956 said to have been
executed by Kaveri Reddy in favour of H. Kempaiah, however,
rejected to claim made for entire extent of land on the ground
of claiming excess land, which is impermissible under Section
66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Section 9 of the
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954.
20. In order to understand the claim made by the
petitioners in all these writ petitions, it is undisputed by all the
petitioners that, Konda Reddy and Nanja Reddy are the
- 62 -
brothers. Konda Reddy had no issues. Nanja Reddy had three
children namely, Kaveri Reddy, Thimma Reddy and Nanja
Reddy. It is forthcoming from the registered Sale Deed dated
16th July, 1943 that, Kaveri Reddy was the foster son of Konda
Reddy. As per aforementioned Sale Deed, Kaveri Reddy
purchased the entire Jodi Chalamakunte Village, Jala Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk measuring to an extent of 494 acre 20
guntas from its jodidhar K.P. Ramaiah for a valuable
consideration and all the petitioners in the writ petitions,
concerned with their facts on record, however, differs from
their factual aspects henceforth. It is pertinent to mention from
the records that, as per registered Mortgage Deed dated 29th
November, 1948, Kaveri Reddy mortgaged an extent of 160
acres to one Munibyrappa. In the said mortgage deed
reference has been made to the Partition Deed dated 28th
September, 1948 said to have been made amongst Kaveri
Reddy and his two brothers Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy.
In the said partition, Kaveri Reddy got 160 acres and other two
brothers got 155 acres each. The reference regarding execution
of the Partition Deed dated 28th September, 1948 found place
in the Mortgage Deed dated 13th October, 1953 said to have
been executed by Thimma Reddy to an extent of 155 acres to
one Nanjappa. It is also forthcoming from the Mortgage Deed
- 63 -
dated 09th December, 1953 said to have been executed by
Nanja Reddy in favour of one Nanjappa that the reference has
been made with regard to partition deed. These mortgage
deeds are unchallenged by the petitioners and further, these
registered mortgage deeds are public documents. It is also
forthcoming from the records that, Thimma Reddy and Nanja
Reddy are the brothers of the Kaveri Reddy, sold their share to
an extent of 310 acres in favour of Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and
Muniswamppa @ Doddanna as per registered Sale Deed dated
19th June, 1958 for valuable consideration. Though the said
Partition Deed dated 28th September, 1948 has not come to the
light of this Court or before the Land Tribunal, however, Kaveri
Reddy and his brothers have acted upon by mentioning the said
Partition Deed in the subsequent registered mortgage deeds
referred to above. It may be safely held that, there was a
partition amongst Kaveri Reddy and his two brothers Thimma
Reddy and Nanja Reddy. It is also to be noted that, Kaveri
Reddy had executed registered Sale Deed dated 20th June,
1956 in favour of one H. Kempaiah (Petitioner in W.P.No.
23144 of 2017) to the entire extent of land including the share
of his brothers. At this juncture, it is to be noted that, one
Doddaiah had loan transaction with Kaveri Reddy and in order
to recover the same, the said Doddaiah had filed Original Suit
- 64 -
No.93 of 1953 against the Kaveri Reddy and in the said suit,
share of the Kaveri Reddy was attached on 31st August, 1953.
The said suit came to be decreed on 11th December, 1954 and
in order to execute the decree, Execution Petition No.151 of
1964 was filed by Doddaiah and during the Court Auction, the
said Doddaiah purchased the entire extent of land belonging to
the Kaveri Reddy as per Sale Certificate dated 19th August,
1966. Thereafter, Doddaiah sold the schedule property in
favour of T. Kemparaju as per registered Sale Deed dated 21st
March, 1968. It is also forth coming that, the said T. Kemparaju
has filed application for re-grant of occupancy right in view of
promulgation of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam
Abolition Act, 1954. The said H. Kampaiah also made an
application, seeking re-grant to an extent of 494 acre 25
guntas.
21. In the backdrop of these aspects, as it is contended
by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing
for petitioners in Writ Petition No.23144 of 2017 that the
schedule lands are "reserved land", it is relevant to mention
here that the Government has passed Mysore Alienated Villages
(Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950
- 65 -
and the said Act was promulgated on 05th October, 1950. The
short title to the Act, reads as under:
"An Act to provide for temporary protection of
tenants in alienated villages in the state of Mysore except
Bellary District and to ensure that such tenants are not
deprived of the usual amenities reserved for the use of
the village community."
22. Section 1(3) of the Mysore Alienated Villages
(Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950
provides that the Act shall remain in force up to 31st December,
1957. Section 6 of Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of
Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950 envisages that
the owners of the property shall not encumber the schedule
properties through sale, mortgage, lease, or alienate any
reserved land or land in the possession of the Tenants in any
alienated village. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers
that, Kaveri Reddy had filed an application to the Deputy
Commissioner, seeking permission to sell the entire extent of
land and the said application was accepted by the Deputy
Commissioner as per order dated 17th May, 1956, granting
permission to sell the entire village. Simultaneously, the
brothers of Kaveri Reddy viz., Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy
had filed application, seeking permission to sell their share and
- 66 -
same was rejected by order dated 16th April, 1958 before the
Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams in Revenue
Miscellaneous No.12/1957-58. In the said proceedings, it is
held that the said Kaveri Reddy has mortgaged the schedule
land to one Munibyrappa of Budhigere Village and also the said
Kaveri Reddy sold the entire village to H. Kempaiah and the
said Tenancy proceedings is pending consideration before the
Court of Amildhar, Devanahalli between Sri. Munibyrappa
(mortgagee of the village) and Sri. Kaveri Reddy (mortgager).
Hence, it is held as follows:
"This office order A1.P.R.143/55 dated 17th May
1956 granting permission to sell the Jodi Village by Sri.
Kaveri Reddy cannot confer a right which he was not
already enjoying and it can at best permit him to alienate
his interest in the Jodi Village. If he has sought to
exercise more rights than he is entitled, so legally it is
upto the appellants to establish their title in a proper
court of law. In view of the orders already passed by this
Court permitting alienation of the Jodi Village, the petition
is dismissed."
23. The aforementioned order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, rejecting the application made by Thimma
Reddy and Nanja Reddy was challenged in Revision No.8/1959
before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and
the said Revision is dismissed by order dated 20th February,
- 67 -
1959 on the ground that the land in question is a jodi village,
since vested in the Government with effect from 01st February,
1959, by virtue of Notification dated 13th January, 1959.
Accordingly, an observation is made as under:
"2. xxxx. It therefore, follows that as a
consequence of this vesting the rights of the petitioners if
any, have to be determined with reference to the Mysore
Inam Abolition Act, 1954. Section 37 of that Act indicates
that with effect from the date of vesting the Mysore
Alienated villages (Protection of Tenants and
Miscellaneous) provisions Act 1950 shall be deemed to
have been repealed in its application to the inam village
concerned when this is the position we have no
jurisdiction to exercise revisional powers in respect of an
issue under the Act which has since been repealed with
reference to this vested villager.
3. Further the dispute relates to the title of the
petitioners to a 2/3 hissa in the said jodi village and their
possession and enjoyment of the land comprising 2/3
hissa and their alleged right of sale. This claim has to be
determined under the Inam Abolition Act. The rights of
the petitioners of any in accordance with the provisions of
the Inam Abolition Act and the relief as per law have to
be urged and sought before the Special Deputy
Commissioner for Abolition of Inams. The request of the
counsel for the petitioners is that this case may be sent to
the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams.
But it is left to the petitioners to prefer an application
before the Special Deputy Commissioner in accordance
with law. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed.
- 68 -
24. At this juncture, it is to be noted that, the
Government has promulgated Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 on 15th March, 1955
and in terms of the Section 9 of the said Act, the
occupant/Inamdhars have to register as an occupant of the
land, seeking re-grant of the land by making necessary
application. Since the schedule lands are the Inam lands and in
view of the order passed in Revision No.8/1959, the purchasers
of the land from Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy viz.,
Munibyrappa, Nanjappa and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna have
filed an application, seeking occupancy rights under Section 9 of
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954
and the said application was tagged along with the application
filed by H. Kempaiah. The Special Deputy Commissioner for
Inams Abolition, Bengaluru in Case No.200/1963-64, by order
dated 23rd October, 1967, granted occupancy right in favour of
H. Kempaiah, however, rejected the claim made by other
applicants. The above order of rejection dated 23rd October,
1967 in respect of granting occupancy right in favour of
Munibyrappa, Najappa and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna was
challenged before Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
- 69 -
No.463/1968. In the said proceedings, paragraph 16 and
operative portion reads as under:
"16. For the reasons stated above, we are of the
view that (i) Shri Kaveri Reddy had right and title only to
an extent of 160 acres in this Jodi village, and it is that
right which has been acquired by the respondent
notwithstanding the registered sale deed dated
20.06.1956 in favour of respondent; (ii) we also hold that
Shri. Timma Reddy and Nanja Reddy had two-third share
in this Jodi village to which right the three appellants have
suceeded by virtue of the registered sale deed dated
19.06.1958; (iii) that the impugned order registering the
occupancy rights of the village of Jodi Challamkunte
consisting of S.Nos.1 to 72 except S.No.78 in favour of
the respondent under Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act
cannot be upheld. We therefore, make the following:
ORDER
The occupancy right of 160 acres which had fallen to the share of Kaveri Reddy be registered under Section 9 of the Act in the name of respondent Sri. H. Kempaiah. The occupancy right in respect of the lands of the share of Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy at 130 acres each, in all 260 acres, be registered in the names of the three appellants jointly under section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act."
25. The aforementioned order dated 25th May, 1970 in Appeal No.463/1968 by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal Bengaluru was challenged by Sri. H. Kempaiah (petitioner in
- 70 -
W.P.No.23144 of 2017) before this Court in Writ Petition No.2402 of 1970 and this Court, by order dated 01st March, 1974, allowed the writ petition and set-aside the impugned order therein consequently, remanded the matter to the Tribunal to restore the Appeal No.463/1968 and pass appropriate orders, after extending opportunity of hearing to the parties. Subsequent to the remand made by this Court, the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, by order dated 18th December, 1974, further remanded the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner and the observation made by the Tribunal therein, is as follows:
"During the course of arguments, it is noticed that the High Court has remanded case for finding whether the lands in question are reserved lands or not. It is found from records and it is conceded by both the learned counsels that no evidence on the question has been let in by the parties. Hence, it is submitted by both the counsels that the case may be remanded. In view of the fact that unless there is evidence, the said question cannot be determined, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the case is remanded. Hence, by consent of both the counsels, the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner is set-aside and the case is remanded for fresh disposal, after giving sufficient opportunity to all the parties to lead evidence not only on the said question but also on all other question they may desire. Pronounced in open court."
- 71 -
26. After remand made by the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bengaluru, by order dated 31st July, 1976 held that the land in question is the reserve land and therefore, the sale made by Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy in respect of said reserved lands is void and the purchasers from them do not derive any title. However, granted occupancy right in favour of H. Kempaiah as he had established that the Kaveri Reddy secured necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner to sell the entire village. The said order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.127/1977 and the Tribunal, by order dated 03rd June, 1981, dismissed the appeal. The said order of the Tribunal dated 03rd June, 1981 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.33954 of 1982 and connected petitions and this Court, after considering the material on record, by dated 26th February, 1985, allowed the writ petitions and at paragraph 7 of the order, held as follows:
"7. In the result, (i) rule issued in each of these cases is made absolute; (ii) the order of the appellate Tribunal made on 3-6-1981 and the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner made on 31-7-1981 and the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner made on 31-7-1976 are quashed and (iii) the cases are remitted to the Special
- 72 -
Deputy Commissioner for disposal afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the parties of producing evidence and of being heard."
27. After the order of remand made by this Court in the in Writ Petition No.33954 of 1982 and connected petitions, the Tribunal has not taken-up the matter for disposal and as such, the legal representatives of Nanjappa and Munibyrappa have filed Writ Petition No.24912 of 1994 before this Court, and this Court, by order dated 21st September, 1994, directed the Land Tribunal to dispose of the Case No.200/1963-64 within three months from the date of the receipt of the order, after hearing the parties. In the said writ petition, this Court, had also issued direction to the Tribunal to search for the records, if the records are misplaced as it is the duty of the respondent-Land Tribunal to search for the records and dispose of the case. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division and Chairman, Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, by order dated 21st May, 2013, rejected the claim made by all the parties/claimants and directed the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk to resume the land to the Government.
- 73 -
28. At this juncture, it is relevant to recollect that, original records were destroyed in fire in the Land Tribunal and Circular dated 29th September, 1981 was issued by the Government, which provides for reconstruction of destroyed records. It is to be noted as submitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties that the records were destroyed on account of fire and thereafter, records were reconstructed and pursuant to the same, order dated 21st May, 2013 came to be passed. The said order dated 21st May, 2013 was challenged before this court in Writ Petition No.23427 of 2013 and connected petitions and this Court, by order dated 21st August, 2014, allowed the writ petitions and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal to dispose of the claim petitions at the earliest. Pursuant to the remand order dated 21st August, 2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.23427 of 2013 and connected petitions, the Land Tribunal, by impugned order dated 22nd May, 2017, allowed the claim petition filed by H. Kempaiah and granted occupancy right to an extent of 54 acres of 'D' Class land in Survey No.1 to 104 situate at Chalamakunte Village, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, subject to the outcome of proceedings in L.R.F.43/1974-75, however, conferment of occupancy right in respect of remaining
- 74 -
petitioner/claimants therein was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, these writ petitions are presented before this Court.
29. Having taken note of the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into account the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition 2402 of 1970 dated 01st March, 1974, whether the land is reserved land or not is to be determined by the Tribunal. That apart, it is the duty of the Tribunal to answer, whether the applications made by Kaveri Reddy, Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy, seeking permission to alienate the property is in accordance with law. If these above two questions are answered in favour of the claimants thereunder, the alienation made by them in respect of the ancestors of the petitioners herein as well as the sale made in favour of H. Kempaiah is to be confirmed. On the other hand, whether the claim made by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017, claiming right over the property in terms of the order of attachment made in Original Suit No.93 of 1953, have to prove their right of ownership in respect of the land to an extent of 160 acres belong to Kaveri Reddy. In this aspect, it is not in dispute that, as enunciated above, Mysore Act XIX of 1950 i.e., Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950 provides for temporary
- 75 -
protection of tenants in alienated villages. The said Act was in force from 05th October, 1950 to 31st December, 1957. Section 2(2) of the said Act provides for definition of "reserved land". Section 6 of the said Act provides for control of alienation of reserved land. It is mandatory to obtain permission from the Deputy Commissioner before alienating the reserved land. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the entire jodi inam village was declared as an inam land and therefore, same shall come within the purview of Section 2(2) of the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950. It is not in dispute that, Kaveri Reddy having purchased the entire jodi inam land as per registered Sale Deed dated 16th July, 1943 from K.P. Ramaiah and therefore, it cannot be doubted that the said land purchased by the Kaveri Reddy is a joint family property consisting of himself and his brothers Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy. In this regard, the recitals of subsequent Mortgage Deed dated 29th November, 1948 reads as under:
"ಸ ಾ ರದ ವಂ ೈನೂರ ನಲವ ೆಂಟ ೇ ಇ ನವಂಬರು
ಾ ೕಕು ಯಪ ೋಂಭತರಲೂ! "ೇವನಹ$% . ಾಲೂ!ಕು ಚನ'(ಾಯಪಟ)ನ
*ಾ+ಮದ-! .ರುವ /ೋಬ$ ಬೂ0*ೆ(ೆ 1ಾಳ ಾಯ3ನಹ$% ವೃತ
5ಾಲ/ೋಬ$ 5ೊ6ಚಲಮಕುಂ7ೆ *ಾ+ಮದ 5ೋ6"ಾ8 1ೊಂ9ಾ(ೆ6:
ಾಕುಮಗ 1ಾ<ೇರ(ೆ6: ಬರ=1ೊಟ) >ೋಗ? ಪತ+ ಅ"ಾA "ೇವನಹ$%
- 76 -
ಾಲೂ!ಕು 5ಾಲದ ಚಲಮಕುಂ7ೆ *ಾ+ಮವನು' ೆಂಗಳB ನ-!.ದC
1ಾಚರಕನಹ$% /ೊ6"ಾ8 1ೆ.D. (ಾಮಯ?ನವ ಂ"ಾ ಸ ಾ ರದ
ಪಂ ೈನೂರು ನಲವತ ಎಂಟ ೆ ಇ ಜುGೈ ಾ ೕಕು ಹ0 ಾರರಲೂ!
1ಾಗದ ಬ(ೆದು "ೇವನಹ$% ಸH- I ಾJ8ರವರ ಅನುಮKಯ-! ಾ ರದ ವಂ>ೈನೂ(ಾ ನಲವತು ಮೂರ ೆ ಇ ಾ ೕಕು ಹ ೊಂಭತರಲೂ! ಖ ೕ0 ವತ+ I ಾJA ನನ' ಾ Mೕನನು ಭವದ-!.ದುC ಚಲಮಕುಂ7ೆ 5ೋ6 ತ ಖುN ಬಂ*ಾಯು ಸ/ಾ ೇ ಾಲ3ನೂ(ಾ ೊಂಬತ ಾಲು3 ಯಕ(ೆ ಇಪ ೆOದು ಗುಂmÉಆ1ಾರ (ಐವ ೊಂಭತು) ರೂRಾ.ವSಳ% 5ೋ6 *ಾ+ಮ1ೆ3 ಚಕು3ಬಂM ¥ÀÆವT1ೆ3 ಹಂದರಹ$% Uತರಹ$% ಬೂ0*ೆ(ೆ ಗ6 ಪ=Vಮ1ೆ3 /ೊಸಹ$% ಗ6 ಉತರ1ೆ3 ಮಂಚಪ ನ /ೊಸಹ$% ಮತು ಬೂ0*ೆ(ೆ ಗ6 ದXಣ1ೆ3 Zಾರಸಂದ+ ಮತು 5ೊKಪSರದ ಗ6ಯ ಮ[ೆ?.ರತಕ3ಂತ 5ೊ6 ಚಲªÀÄಕುಂ7ೆ *ಾ+ಮದ-! ಯಂ\*ೆ ಅಂದ(ೆ 'ಸ 48 ಾ ರದ ವಂ ೈನೂರ ಮೂ ೆಂಟ ೇ ಇ ]ೆಪ)ಂಬರು vÁjÃRÄ ¬Äಪ ೆಂlರಲೂ! ನನ' ತಮ^ಂ0(ಾದ KZಾ^(ೆ6: ಮತು ನಂ5ಾ(ೆ6: ಯವರ U¸Éìಗಳ_ ಾ` ನನ' U¸Éì*ೆ ಬಂ0ರುವ MAದನೂರ ಅರವತು ಎಕ(ೆ*ೆ ZÀPÀĄ̈sÀA¢ü ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ §Æ¢UÉgÉAiÀįÉè ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ gÁdPÁ®ÄªÉ GvÀÛgÀPÌÉ ªÀÄAZÀ¥Àà£ÀºÉƸÀºÀ½î UÀr Ρ.Τ.Ο. (b)(ಹಗು)ಯಡ*ೈ /ೆಬbc)ನ ಗುತುT 1ಾ<ೇರ(ೆ6: /ಾ`ದC1ೆ3 ಒಕ3ಲು"ಾ8 \.Kಮ^ಪ ಯ?ನ §gÀºÀ Second sheet of document No.1097 of 1948-1989 Book No.1, Mts Macci Sub-Registrar 29th November 1948 (Seal) zÀQëtPÉÌ £ÀAeÁgÀrØ ಮತು KZಾ^(ೆ6: U¸Éì*ೆ ಬಂದರತಕ3 ಜfೕನುಗಳ_ ತಮ^ಂ0(ಾದ KZಾ^(ೆ6: ನಂ5ಾ(ೆ6:
ಯವರುಗ$ಗೂ ನನಗೂ ಸಂ ಾರದ-! ಸ gೕಳ"ೆ ನಮ^ ನಮ^ >ಾಗಗಳ_ Gೇ<ಾ Zಾ6 1ೊಂಡು ನನ' U¸Éì*ೆ ಬಂ0ರತಕ3 hೕಲ3ಂಡ ಒಂದನೂ(ಾ ಅರವತು ಎಕ(ೆ ಜfೕನನು' iನ*ೆ *ೌgÀßhಂk ಒಂದು ಾ ರ ರೂRಾ.ಗ$*ೆ ಶುದm >ೋಗ?ಮಂ6.ಂದ ನ<ೆಸ0+ ಸ ತು ಸುಪMT*ೆ gಟು)1ೊc)ರು ೇ ೆ.
(Emphasis Supplied)
30. The above mortgage deed executed by Kaveri Reddy, makes it clear that the share of Kaveri Reddy in the schedule land is only to an extent of 160 acres and remaining two-third
- 77 -
share has been assigned to brothers of Kaveri Reddy viz., Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy. It is also to be noted that, both Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy had executed registered Mortgage Deeds dated 13th October, 1953 and 09th December, 1953 in favour of Nanjappa. It is pertinent to mention here that, though the said Kaveri Reddy and his brothers Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy had executed registered mortgage deeds referred to above, however, have sold their share in the schedule land, in which, Kaveri Reddy had executed registered Sale Deed dated 20th June, 1956 in favour of H. Kempaiah to the entire extent of jodi inam land, despite having no authority to sell the two-third share of Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy. It is also to be noted that, both Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy had executed registered mortgage deed in favour of Nanjappa despite the same, have sold their share in favour of Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna as per registered Sale Deed dated 19th June, 1958. The said aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Land Tribunal in the impugned order with regard to title of the Kaveri Reddy and his brothers, in terms of the partition deed referred to above. It is also not in dispute that, Kaveri Reddy, Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy have made an application, seeking permission to sell their share as per Section 6 of Mysore Alienated Villages
- 78 -
(Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950. The Special Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 17th May, 1956, granted permission to Kaveri Reddy to sell the entire extent of land, however, it could be held that the said Kaveri Reddy had authority to sell only his share to an extent of 160 acres in terms of the Partition Deed dated 28th September, 1948 said to have been executed amongst Kaveri Reddy and his two brothers viz., Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy. It is also pertinent to mention here that, Kaveri Reddy got permission to sell the entire village and the said application was allowed on 17th May, 1956 by the Special Deputy Commissioner and during the said period, Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950 was in force. In terms of the said permission granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Kaveri Reddy executed registered Sale Deed in favour of H. Kempaiah on 20th June, 1956 and the question of granting permission to the whole extent is just and proper in terms of the partition deed, has been brush aside by the Land Tribunal in the impugned order. Simultaneously, though the permission sought for by Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy was rejected as per order dated 16th April, 1958, the reasons for rejection is to be considered in the light of share of brothers of Kaveri Reddy. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the
- 79 -
operative portion of order dated 16th April, 1958 in Revenue Miscellaneous No.12/1957-58, and same reads as under:
"This office order A1.P.R.143/55 dated 17th May, 1956, granting permission to sell the jodi village by Sri. Kaveri Reddy cannot confer a right which, he was not already enjoying and it can at best permit him to alienate his interest in the jodi village. If he has sought to exercise more rights than he is entitled so legally, it is up to the appellants to establish their title in a proper court of law in view of the orders already passed by this Court permitting alienation of the jodi village, the petition is dismissed."
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. Though the aforementioned order was passed on 16th April, 1958 and on the said date, the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950 was not in force in terms of Section 1(3) of the said Act, seeking permission after the repealing of the said Act does not arise and the applicants have to register as occupants under the provisions of Section 6 and 9 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. In this regard, as the applications, seeking occupancy rights were pending consideration before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, whereby applicants are the purchasers of the land from Kaveri Reddy and his two brothers, the finding recorded by the
- 80 -
Land Tribunal in the impugned order cannot be accepted and as such, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires detailed consideration by the Land Tribunal afresh and on this score, the matter deserves to be remitted to Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in respect of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.30369 of 2017, 23144 of 2017 and 24109 of 2017.
32. It is also to be noted that, on careful examination of the entire finding recorded by the Land Tribunal, the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal, rejecting the claim made by T. Kemparaju (Petitioner in W.P. No.27409 of 2017) is contrary to law. At this juncture, it is to be noticed that, Kaveri Reddy had purchased trees from Doddaiah and had failed to pay the debt, resulting in filing of Original Suit No.93 of 1953, wherein the suit is one for recovery of sum of Rs.700/-. It is also to be made known that the schedule land belonging to Kaveri Reddy was attached in the above suit and the said suit came to be decreed on 11th December, 1954. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, Section 6 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 is not applicable to the land which had been attached in Original Suit No.93 of 1953, since the attachment is made on account of non-payment of debt by Kaveri Reddy. The said attachment cannot be
- 81 -
construed as sale, mortgage, lease, other assignment or alienation of the land in question in respect of the above provision of the Act. Taking into consideration that the share of Kaveri Reddy in the schedule land to an extent of 160 acres in terms of finding recorded above, in view of the recitals in the Mortgage Deed dated 29th November, 1948 and also the Partition Deed dated 28th September, 1948, the petitioner-T. Kemparaju in Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017 is entitled for relief to an extent of share of Kaveri Reddy in the schedule land. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to mention here that the Sale Certificate dated 19th August, 1966 was issued in favour of Doddaiah and as the share of Kaveri Reddy was brought up for sale at Public Auction in Execution Petition No.151 of 1964 and in the said Court Auction, Doddaiah had purchased the extent of 160 acres, which was sold subsequently in favour of T. Kemparaju (Petitioner in W.P.27409 of 2017) in terms of registered Sale Deed dated 21st March, 1968. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, as T. Kemparaju (Petitioner in W.P. No.27409 of 2017) derived his title to the property through the registered Sale Deed dated 21st March, 1968 and the issuance of Sale Certificate dated 19th August, 1966 in favour of Doddaiah, the Sale Deed dated 25th June, 1956 executed by Kaveri Reddy in
- 82 -
favour H. Kampaiah (Petitioner in W.P.23144 of 2017) is void to an extent of 160 acres, which is the subject matter in Original Suit No. 93 of 1953 in view of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TEEKA (supra). Paragraph 13 of the said judgment reads as under:
"13. We need not multiply decisions, as the legal position is clear, and it may be stated as follows: where a property has been legally attached by a court, the possession of the same passes from the owner to the court or its agent. In that situation, the owner of the said property cannot take the law into his own hands, but can file a claim- petition to enforce his right. if he resorts to force to get back the property, he acts unlawfully and by taking the property from the legal possession of the court or its agent, he is causing wrongful loss to the court. As long as the attachment is subsisting, he is not entitle to the possession of the property, and by taking that property by unlawful means he is causing wrongful gain to himself. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellants in unlawfully taking away the cattle from the possession of the decree-holder, who is only a bailee of the sapurdar, have cause wrongful loss to him and therefore they are guilty of any offence under Section 424 IPC."
33. It is well settled principle in law that, a private alienation of property, after attachment by the competent court is void as against the claims enforceable under the attachment. The scope and object of Section 64 of the Code of Civil
- 83 -
Procedure is to declare private alienations of property after attachment to be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. The legislative intent of Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to benefit the decree holder so that he may not be impeded by any alienation in executing the decree. The object is to prevent fraud on decree holders and to secure intact the rights of attaching creditors and of those creditors who have obtained decrees and are entitled to satisfaction out of the assets of the judgment debtor. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S. MANI vs. B. CHINNASWAMY NAIDU reported in AIR 2010 SC 3600 held that, a private sale of an attached property is void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"7. One of the modes of enforcing execution of a money decree is by attachment and sale of the property of the judgment-debtor. (Vide Sec.51(b) of the Code). Attachment of an immovable property is made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge (Vide Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code). Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that private alienation of property after attachment is void and sub-section (1) thereof is extracted below :
- 84 -
"64. Private alienation of property after attachment to be void.--(1) Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other money contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment."
8. An attachment of an immovable property effected in execution of a decree, will continue until the said property is sold and the sale is confirmed, unless it is determined or removed on account of any of the following reasons:
(i) By deemed withdrawal under Rule 55 Order 21 of the Code, that is, where the attachment is deemed to be withdrawn on account of (a) the amount decreed with all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the attachment being paid into court; or (b) satisfaction of the decree being otherwise made through the court or is certified to the court; or (c) the decree being set aside or reversed.
(ii) By determination under Rule 57 Order 21 of the Code, that is, after any property has been attached in execution of a decree, the court passes an order dismissing the application for execution of the decree, but omits to give a direction that the attachment shall continue. (When an execution application is dismissed, for whatsoever reason, the court is required to direct whether the attachment shall continue or cease and shall also indicate the period up to which the attachment shall continue or the date on which such attachment shall cease).
(iii) By release of the property from attachment under Rule 58 Order 21 of the Code, that is when any claim is preferred to the property attached in execution, or any objection is made to the attachment, on the ground that the property is not liable to such attachment and the court, on adjudication of the claim or the objections, releases the property from attachment.
- 85 -
(iv) By operation of law, that is, on account of any statute declaring the attachment in execution shall cease to operate, or by the decree (in respect of which the property is attached) being nullified, or by the execution being barred by the law of limitation.
(v) By consent of parties, that is, where the decree holder and the judgment debtor agree that the attachment be withdrawn or raised."
34. Following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S. MANI (supra) and TEEKA (supra), I am of the considered opinion that, T. Kemparaju (Petitioner in W.P. 27409 of 2017) established his right over the property to an extent of 160 acres as per attachment made in Original Suit No.93 of 1953 (Execution Petition No.151 of 1964). Therefore, Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017 is liable to be allowed and the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk in the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2017 is required to be set-aside. At this juncture, it is to be noted that, the original records were destroyed and reconstructed subsequently and the said T. Kemparaju has filed application seeking re-grant is also destroyed an account of fire.
35. However, petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.30369 of 2017 and 24109 of 2017 are the legal representatives of late Nanjappa, Munibyrappa and Muniswamappa @ Doddanna, who claims right over the property in terms of registered Sale Deed
- 86 -
dated 19th June, 1958 said to have been executed by brothers of Kaveri Reddy viz., Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy. In view of the registered Mortgage Deed dated 13th October, 1953 said to have been executed by Thimma Reddy in favour of Nanjappa and registered Mortgage Deed dated 09th December, 1953 said to have been executed by Nanja Reddy in favour of Nanjappa, the Sale Deed dated 19th June, 1958 having been executed by Thimma Reddy and Nanja Reddy in favour of Nanjappa, Muniswamappa @ Doddanna and Munibyrappa and there is appropriate finding recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order, rejecting their claims and the Land Tribunal in the impugned order has not appreciated the earlier finding recorded by the Mysore Revenue Tribunal as well the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as discussed above. It is pertinent to mention here that the Land Tribunal without considering the observation made by this Court in Writ Petition No.2402 of 1970 disposed of on 01st March, 1974, Writ Petition No.33954 of 1982 disposed of on 26th February, 1985, Writ Petition No.24912 of 1994 disposed of on 21st September, 1994 and Writ Petition No.23427 of 2013 and connected petitions disposed of on 21st August, 2014, erroneously dismissed the claim of the petitioners and their predecessors in interest and as such, the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2017 passed by
- 87 -
the Land Tribunal insofar as Writ Petition Nos.30369 of 2017 and 24109 of 2017 is to be set-aside and matter be remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the observation made above.
36. In respect of claim made by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.23144 of 2017, I have arrived at a conclusion that the said Kaveri Reddy had no authority under law to execute the Sale Deed dated 20th June, 1956 in favour of H. Kempaiah to an extent of 160 acres, which has been attached in Original Suit No.93 of 1953 (Execution Petition No.151 of 1964). In view of scope of Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.S. MANI (supra) and TEEKA (supra), the auction sale made in respect of 160 acres which is the subject matter in the aforementioned suit and the Execution Petition, is held to be valid. In that view of the matter, as there are disputed question of facts are involved with regard to the registration of Mortgage Deed dated 29th November, 1948 made by Kaveri Reddy in favour of Munibyrappa and further there is no finding in the impugned order relating to the authority of Kaveri Reddy to execute the sale deed in favour of H. Kempaiah as it is argued at Bar that, during the said period Sri. H. Kempaiah was also a Member of
- 88 -
Land Tribunal and the said aspect was not countered by either of the parties including the learned Additional Government Advocate, I do not wish to express any opinion on the rights of H. Kempaiah in respect of the subject land in Writ Petition No.23144 of 2017 and same is to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. It is also to be noted that the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right to an extent of 54 acres of 'D' Class land, without considering the observation made above in these petitions. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the observation made by the Land Tribunal in the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2017 in respect of the right of H. Kempaiah is kept open and it is for the Land Tribunal to decide the right of H. Kempaiah in respect of the subject land in terms of the observation made above. Accordingly, the matter deserves to be remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in this regard. In view of the observation made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition No.27409 of 2017 is allowed and finding recorded by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Bengaluru in the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2017 in Case No.INA.CR.01/1997-98 is set-aside in
- 89 -
respect of claim made by the petitioner-T. Kemparaju and therefore, Revenue Authorities are directed to mutate the records in the name of legal representatives of T. Kemparaju in respect of the land to an extent of 160 acres, which is the subject matter in Original Suit No. 93 of 1953, (Execution Petition No. 151 of 1964;
2) Writ Petition Nos.30369 of 2017 and 24109 of 2017 are allowed by setting aside the order dated 22nd May, 2017 in Case No. INA.C.R.01/97-98 and matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in respect of claim made by the predecessors of petitioners in the light of observation made above, excluding the land to an extent of 160 acres, which is the subject matter in Original Suit No. 93 of 1953, (Execution Petition No. 151 of 1964;
3) Writ Petition No.23144 of 2017 is disposed of and matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal in entirety for fresh consideration in respect of claim made by H. Kempaiah, excluding the subject matter of land in Original Suit No.93 of 1953 (Execution Petition No.151 of 1964) in light of the observation made above;
- 90 -
4) The respondent-Land Tribunal is directed to expedite the hearing and dispose of the matter at the earliest in respect of the remaining land left out after excluding the land to an extent of 160 acres, which is the subject matter in Original Suit No.93 of 1953, (Execution Petition No. 151 of 1964.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK