Karnataka High Court
Sri. A.C. Anantha Swamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2017
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION No.37145 OF 2016(LR-RES)
AND
WRIT PETITION NOS. 37229-37231 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. A.C. ANANTHA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O. LATE PATEL CHIKKAHANUMAIAH,
RESIDING AT AVALAHALLI,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 026. ... PETITIONER
(By SRI. L.M. PANDURANGA SWAMY, ADV. FOR
SRI. R. BHADRINATH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
D. C. OFFICE COMPOUND,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
-2-
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK ,
D. C. OFFICE COMPOUND,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE TAHASILDAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -1,
KIADB (BMICP), ARAVINDA BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NICE LTD.,
NO. 1, MIDFORD HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDEN,
M. G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
7. SRI. A. C. GURUMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O. LATE CHIKKA HANUMAIAH,
RESIDING AT AVALAHALLI,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 026.
8. SRI. H. RAMAIH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O. HANUMAIAH,
9. SRI. G. CHENNARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O. GUMMAIAH
10. SRI. DEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
S/O. LATE GALAPPA.
-3-
RESPONDENT NOS.8 TO 10 ARE
REPRESENTED BY G.P.A. HOLDER
SRI. D. HEMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O. DEVAPPA.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
PANTHARAPALYA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 039.
11. THE BENGALURU ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
CORPORATE OFFICE, K. R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
BY ITS ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
12. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
N-7, O & M, SUB-DIVISION,
BESCOM, KATHIRAGUPPA,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. MADHUSUDAN R. NAIK, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W.
SMT. B. P. RADHA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.4,
SRI. P. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R.5,
SRI. R.V.S. NAIK, ADV. FOR R.6,
SRI. H. M. MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R.11 & R.12,
R.7 TO R.10 ARE DELETED V.C.O DATED 04.07.2016)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 29.06.2016 SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU FILE PASSED BY THE LAND
TRIBUNAL BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK AT ANNEX-R ETC.
-4-
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for an order to quash the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 29-6-2016 in case No. LRF/INA/CR/02/2016-17, vide Annexure `R'.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, his grandfather was a tenant of certain inam lands including Sy.No.47 measuring an extent of 24 acres 37 guntas of Pantharapalya village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk. The petitioner's father filed an application under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. Occupancy rights were granted to him for certain lands and rejected for the others. After coming into force of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1955, the petitioner's father applied for grant of occupancy rights before the Special Deputy Commissioner, wherein, by the order dated 17-10-1964, the application was allowed. The same was challenged by the Pattangere Group Panchayat -5- and others before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, W.P.1814/1972 was filed before this Court, wherein by the order dated 26th February, 1974, the petition was allowed, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh enquiry. After remand, the Tribunal once again set aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner with respect to certain lands. The same was challenged in W.P.No.5202/1977 before this Hon'ble Court, wherein by the order dated 8-1-1980, the petition was allowed and the matter was once against remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner for a fresh enquiry. After the said order, various proceedings have taken place in the interregnum. Subsequently, the impugned order has been passed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that in terms of Annexure `Q.4', a notice was issued to him dated 10-6-2016 which was received by him -6- on 21-6-2016. He was directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24-6-2016. He did appear on that day. On the next day, he filed objections. Without considering the same, the present order is passed. Therefore, there is no adequate opportunity that is granted to him to make out his case. Further more, the Tribunal has not even considered the objections raised by him. Hence, he prays that the petition be allowed.
4. On the other hand, Sri.Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Advocate General appearing for the State contends that the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted. This is not a fresh litigation between the parties. The litigation has been pending for quite some time. The proceedings are pending since 1980. That evidence has been let in, material has been produced and all such acts that are necessary have been made. Therefore, merely to contend that his objections on the last date, were not considered, cannot be accepted. It is his further plea that none of the objections deserve any consideration. Notwithstanding, -7- the same, the Tribunal has considered the objections of the petitioner. That the Tribunal need not repeat each and every objection. It is sufficient if the objections that were necessary to be considered for the disposal of the matter were considered. The same has been done by the Tribunal. Hence, no interference is called for.
5. Sri. R.V.S.Naik, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 supports the contention of the learned Advocate General.
6. I have considered the impugned order of the Tribunal. The objections raised by the petitioner does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given various reasons as to why the application requires to be considered. It has referred to the various documentations as well as the earlier orders of this Court etc. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding filing of objections on the very next day of his appearance, the same has not been considered and the order is passed in a hurried manner. On -8- considering the same, I'am of the considered view that the Tribunal should have considered the objections and given a reasonable time to the petitioner. Without doing so, the impugned order would be unsustainable.
7. The further contention of the learned Advocate General is that the dispute has been pending for almost three decades. That there is substantial material placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, only because on the last date, the objections filed, were not considered, cannot by itself be a ground for interference. That the objections filed are not relevant for the disposal of the matter.
8. The length of the litigation is of no consequence. The legal rights of the parties would have to be determined by the authority in a manner known to law. Whether the objections are just and necessary has to be considered by the Tribunal. It is at liberty to decline relief, based on the objections. However, it is duty bound to consider the objections and thereafter to accept or to reject it. None can be condemned unheard. The same -9- having not been done the impugned order becomes unsustainable on that ground itself.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I'am of the considered view that an adequate opportunity has to be granted to the petitioner to make out his case. Therefore, the Tribunal would have to reconsider the same. However, the contention of the learned Advocate General that not only evidence but substantial material has already been produced requires to be accepted.
10. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would appear before the Land Tribunal on 24.04.2017, without any further notice. On that date the petitioner is entitled to file all such material in support of his case and conclude his arguments by the end of the day. In view of the submissions made, the question of leading further evidence would not arise for consideration. The Tribunal is directed to consider the case of the parties on merits based on the available material and also to
- 10 -
consider the material which the petitioner is likely to file on 24.04.2017.
11. It is made clear that the parties would not be entitled to lead any further evidence, in view of the fact that evidence is already let-in before the Tribunal / concerned authorities.
12. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed.
The order dated 29.06.2016, in case No.LRF/INA/CR/02/2016-17, Special Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru file No.INA/CR/16(A)/2001-02 connected with INA/CR/16(B)/2001-02 connected with INA/CR/14/2003-04 passed by the Land Tribunal Bengaluru South Taluk vide Annexure-R is set-aside. The Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh based on the aforesaid directions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
- 11 -
The interim order granted by this court on 04.07.2016 to maintain status-quo shall continue till the disposal of the matter before the Tribunal.
The pending I.A. stands disposed off.
SD/-
JUDGE Mgn