Karnataka High Court
Vaijayanti W/O Prabhakar Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
I
IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
Dated this the 15 day o June 2012
Betore
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAN SH
ANTANAGOUDAR
JVnt Petition Nos 67162 & 61163 of 200
9 (ULC)
BE P'VEEN
v'a'javantt W o Prabhakar Pat'
)!c Arun Yesnwarn Kittur Ki,turka,
Ajed 27 years.0c3 1
@
Hold
o user work
R o 31 eva ii Naç,dr k andah Road
t3e'gaum 590001 Pep esent ng tie.
State or Si1 Ye&'want Yfle, t' Kilt rica
3eino grand cia' Øter of V P K.ttur
?et I(r.e
B)Sr, \RJats 4a:.ae
A P.1 P%
I1 1
114State o Kwr'ataica
Rep e.e ited by U Cccieta';
I .)Jr ') iel' en.Dtp
al'w"
MCrd 1P"P tdkaVc i
Par.ga. 're 4
56Cit
'.. ,,e'j,• r, a mn: br.v'r
'Jzar. Li J C,. Ii C
'ga".a l'.o
e q--
'td"oca' fl3 °--cr' ett
S
p_I •
.
. e I
-I f •,) ib!IC. •ic t' r ''
I J •s ,j j'1j f( '. 'I I '1 --
(nens cs reso rstorti ri eian
cs
iiSyNo16o
of Belgaum vifiege measuring 91'N3 70 cq rots,
to toe ne itioner
mmed ate ly
ThIs wnOtItO9 coming on for prcuninar/ !fl
bee na B
cop this day the Dou
4r made the foVow g
ORDER
e g andtatner of the petit onE r viz Yesowant Ram Kittur Kitturar was a tenant in respect of the tand oearing R S No 160 f Belgaum akk and District Beiqaum measuring 2 acres 30 guntas After romi ng nto force of the raak rd Peom A t 9t he n ad an ariphuauuo for grant of occupancy rights n m faiour Tne and T ibr nai Beigaom by its cae dated 26 11 1 76 grante ccc ipancy :ig s m faour or toe aprliant as ocr Ann exure B Certifica e nf Regisrratnr n h'rrn Mn aç in oisr csiind fovn a nf app (ant Ofl 28 J2,1981 ac pe AnnexirroC Th rcf'sr i d&1arstio t 0 a n o be Ceb by pe°honer's atber Ia rjun
- h nt K to b [a brie sowant Rm K'tm htJ expre' nr(jnr tfl çCri\5i r ijc,jr LA ( o Hc 4 U Feg I e A 10 6 At r na a crde nan t, U ross na Jo m tcot ii go ro 3 'ltF t 3 Q 3 dated 19.06 982 as per Ar'nexure-E holding tha the petitionerta leldanareao 012 lOsq r"s sttaedi, F S No 66 of Belgaum. in excess of ce 1mg limits. Pursuant to thp s'aidorderdatedl9C'61982 tAn cx re cc rdnj ott State Government. possession is taken According to the State Goverrment notice came to be i'sued on 0402 1983 i iforming the petitioner s father to hand-over the possession f excess land However petition°r s 'a'her re-named absent 2602 1383 as required uide the said notice. Hence possession of excess lana to an extent of 9 128 70 sq n's % said to tave taken by dra vhg panc'narias Subsequer tly a 1 orde '; Ire tn be rasse3 bl te State flovenmrnenr as er AiiexureF dated 1 1194 Sr cm p t t. or) ter uthr ty 'c a 'ot the or a to 'he oerefiuarie- fur tr,e specS C purpose with a roe that Oe sha Ia b ul' d y 1 allotte' s i n ,pønv' u'Jmr 'se fnt SI'. - r Jt.rir.q tnt. pe'cd it o v' 't wa as raac Cc o aer at nnexbrE a 1 r tre aq'i is ,--s t,'.sea . 'S $ itt' wiir j, ',..i Y s. yti .E -( 'I )t. I N .1 •r -- . . 3 1' 4 sq ms is allotted in favour of Divisional Engir eer Teiegiaprs.
Pelgaum for office building ird an area of 3Q31 so Ms is aic t d i a O f As., sa t (\'nere Manaqe Syndcate Bank. g 1 B aum e hr lie office building buct' a'lotted lands re carved ott of Sj No 166 at Belgaum i.e he 'and in nt'est,'w SubcEquent Ic' the riid o d r eerns 'h t the r ft sona Eng neer Te egraphs Btlga m. nas not started construction of the building as tequred under tne said order Annexu e-F ne has not utPised the land for the spe'ific purpose for which it Vfl allotte Nthn t e ei d of o e ear the As istant Gene al Manager. ayndicate Bank Belgaum however constructed the compot.nd iia;I a d the em StS ou D a iottea ii ns 'a or b it no ot iding e corn icted Bo:n the enfire no 'se n iotedprops.e f', 'i 1 s..ec;f purpose with',' t .e tiu'at pant d Notre, 'a Tie C' uP ',suect by thp ettp. r arnrp.n+ rir 6.
nws K tK
ant .i 1 C tOG d c tn tn ill te 5 0 h a s' a
aft nert . ace .1 Ii i '3C Ii 4'ol not ba
4
i- Yrt.'te' fli-- irr.i. it rd ,r ' J t.y
I .
A t..'ç
C
3
for .'ianding over the p. operty allotted in favo ur of two beneficiar es to the custody of the State C'ov crnm'-nt Accordirg v 1 O5M% to' • vith th° otatc Gote.n ..ant In the. mearwhile petitione. t erein made a rem sentat' on a' per AnnexireL dated 07102009 o the 3ae Cci r n°r fo restoration & the excess land in c uestior in her favour o'• the 1 ground tat We allotment made in av'-ur of boh the afo errentoied )enefca ies ar ca celed era hat io compensation is pa d to her under the Urban Lana Ceil ing Act a id the oPysicat possession o' I r d s also w tr F e ii date f such representation The saic re,resentatiy. also corsi ler?d ty the tate Gaj,or'irner t whe [dbsirg re oraGr AnrexureMdaC.. 7 92 0°a a i edtPesar e.
2 r VE [ata lcarrt advcxate fr tie p4irrc.r
c y nq or it e ig repc.rtet, :Ugmtu1 4 'hc :u'
vJ' N' 77ii0c.r a I c. p.i s a t ' r
W' N 62k1 ))( ': 'e1 t
3
th aid '.o. C b •.'%nt
'4 * vti"'e a '.-i f tilt,t J 'a' 1
i •s c
,(1FY.i . p
S.. r C'
P
report at AnnexureH dated 30 09 2305 where,n t s stated that, as per the Report of the Revenue lnspecto an area of 2 acessir cuti at' ran rJdy' gr yr treid a dani an area of 30 guntas is n pocsess'o ot the Syndicate Bans and they have constructed the compourd wal.
3 WrtpttEr isopposedb hleand 3vrnir Advocate by contending that possession rs taker as oac as in the year 1984 itself and thereafter the property s slotted in favour of tw beleficlarles vz. the Divisioral Slglnear.
Telegraphs. Belgaum ard the Assistant General Manager Syroicate Banv Be'gaurt tre yea 086 ii sf wi [ o ear,y reveals ft at the possession was ake by the State Governme ft a c handea er n fav ur r' the twc here 'cian s lot cv r 0 said bcnefcares dO r itlise the p optty aliott th their a' c r ard b ir 0 t nenwrler ra arc oa 1 te ove t'c p' pof u e t r )t orri' aro JIJ ,t te ,,j rip at ;it jfl 3'° t a rt;'. r NncF Sa'i PC p 7 q0 9 2 n am a nac at aintd ma tg as none ndt.ding the petitioner s ,ather challenged the said order tiil the filing ot this writ petition This writ petition s filed seeking to quash the said ode- after a lapse of about 1 tr 18 years This writ ret'i n nsf -a 'we t c slijbet e d s n sed sol ly on h ground o delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court Delatedly So also.
this Court does not f nd any ground to interfere with order ditad 4Q AR IQR2 c We cnmpatnrtt authnritv 'after heinng the o claa t asp s C ii ooerb seoon h 'ac' 'tiaion Be hat 3b it may he 'art petition insofar as it relates tO prayer ia seek:ng quasniny of he orcai r nexire-r dated 9 0€' 198? 's 'iable tci be rg;acted "n 'he qrot i'd c"f .1--lay aid ahe &s aforame,.tred r reittrer his an r.:ht foi rttt 'IA I md rteg tier ett d tp, o .s tknc 1 Jst-'Gov-in.€it ..
a,d •i)a,,, _1%. r n'r •
I 4
0flt kflt 33, eq ,.
•
Cefl j
2 .7. *2 '...t .t 'arri tsr r fl.
dedarant as excesa. the said rcess lard is a otte d r ou of two benefc aries via, the Divisional Eng'neer T°legraphs Belgaum and t[e AssLtant C3tne al Manager Sy.dica€ Ba ik Be.gaum o an extent Li "098 7C sq Tts and C 3 3L s sq mts respectiiely on 17 12 1Q84 as per Annexu re-F The statement of objections filed by the Stat' Go 'er r rt cea ly reveals that the notice came to be issued to The petitioner s father informing hrn o iard o e t.€ po sessior o tie property on 0402 1983. However possession was not handed ove by the petitioner s father. Hence Doss essic.n was Laken by drawing pa chanan"a in tie presence of panchas A! er akino p"ssecs'on of the pr'pert the bame is allottea ir faou of The iwo beneficiaries as afor m 'iti cc o.
'7 2 1984 Thus it is clea th'it t 'ie petit:oner 5 aispr S5 -seti p;.o k. 114 tef pussua o [c. o,d° p sJ 3 it. w ' t'rt a.. h",itj 3 trpay; r' 'i,.'aj it WPIC,' lit. tw >ub Lrifr io sea a.lnt ec.
't.e 'nc ''sea poer'ieo icr d u-nfc rt
.. ' 'nc
t.tj 'VEt l :a' I i. ' r .. d tlIain. -,;.-:
t
'fl ,' c•g. • °fc c
Cl
and Ki and ultimately the order at Arnexure-M ' passed on
1709 2009 cancehng the allotmerts made in favot r ot the be ieficiar ec ar d for taki ig back possess'c.n o. he properties fo the ceneficar es Be o e passing the sari order a spot inspectionwasdiectedtobecond ct°di rd r ove fy st whether two benefica iesla lotees have utihsed the allotted lands or the specified purpose. The spo' in°pection report is founi a Aniexure -I teen t is stated that tie twc benefluanes I e. the Syndicate Bank Belgaum, nas encircled the area which s alloted to t by a con' pour d aI ti d t e Divis onal :ng'neer Telegraphs Belgaum has not u 'lised th° land I. is a so e 1 "endtLr n the ier spot nspectio epor' t[a r ar'a f tvo aces uror cuti a tot. and pa d s gro vn The spot 'nspecnor reDort furtncr revta,c hat ncr'aIrv'ert i rrad° b' :r'd pati s ae te a i oueator a ha art c,i,, .. acaa' y.., hat at e r heir'q '4 'pos'ec .' r.f 1w ex 'ess 'a-c' ''i e Gd 1°8'38 aid '3 trc sites dd n ttiz I ails .
que to' ki •i je at y r•$r , [it r tr.c t
I
ailc'ttt-j •. I t. t
encroached the land in question and started cultivation Even assuming that the petitioner has encroached the land subseque it to its d spossess ( i. s * .an iot tak dvar tage of the prov sions of the Karnataica Urban Land i Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Al 1°99 Sw co Id tav t ke adsar'tage of tie said Act onlj S her father had .onti nued to be in possession of the property ever after lisposal of the riatt°r by the conp° e4 autiorty oi i,j.y, 1982 r tie facts and circumstances of the case on hand petitioners fathe r was dispossessed of the Ia id n question and subse ue t y t same was a lottec in .avour cf the two benef!cianes and sirac.e ti e sa d tw., heneficiarias did r'' 1 ut s el the lard for tr'e s ecfi pupo ei rwic[ vasalotc,dto ic ts eye la ti e t 1 peioiet t has ercroacr'ed upon the orpe'1y The cpot irspection epo't : ba *4 01 faG et a'i r I s .. ea that ri. d.rci n j be cstpr e 1 tr ..
.etr, c... - sora • ri cf t.'€ : •. :a • •r '• 11 ett' c ti bee' "-' 4 013r .t'nIr •i ,.. . t t r a
nasa uch as in tne said matter this Cou tr or facts has held that the appclla it tie en coitnued to b€ 'i oosscss n o tit oroperty Jespite tht statutory oraers Ever u-i th' Cou r ac.s ,as ou d tta possession of land continued with the petitioners there in Under those circ'mstances 11 s C urt pr ceded t pa s order n favour of the declararits But. Lhe facts in this mailer are otherwise. Since the Property was allotted n favo ur rt vo beneficianes after taking possessior from the petit ioner it canr o be said that the petitioner st'll corn nued to be in possession o thc prope Ii s.
In viw of 'h° above, no ehef as .rayed .or ar the wrt pet tion can "e gtant2d Prstihofl tai's a a 1 t sa r e S d sm sad H' MSGJ:
2fi06201 2 Order on Beirgpoken To in These Writ Petitions were dismisse.d on 15M6A.0l. ha this Court and ttR order \kTh dwttued in the open Court or that da> However. hefora sin nina the order. a memo is Pled hv the learned counsel appearing ICr the. petitioner praying the Court t.o hear the matter "fnr Being Spoben foC Acceding to the prayer uf the petitioners' counsel, the matter is heard today "fdr Being Spoken To" and tOw tbilowina order is made.
Sri ICR. Datar. learned Advocate tAr the ne.tttloners he drawing the attention of the Court to the flrst sentence of paragraph. no. 4 ot the statement of 0 hiectio:as 01 1 dv the State nn IC 08201 lsigneo by the 4 ( o vt \onncate or 02072010) submits thtt tIC land in qgcstion does not nTu \•\.:il•[niri the pura'ievv of the f.irha n hand Ceiling and thereihre the tarn reed run ruinriflu iJrb:aICLanej Ceiling Act and the order made thereon are vitiated, Thus, areurdira iQ him. iCe so cat led can land State and it should revert to the petitioners.
4,.
'hi Fe 'wud ubmivilci. • pp nc'..
1 ess Sri KB ihy tpua.
I arned Gn trnni:rt \d .. itt. ': cLilItIidirk tfrtj tht. c p. e e did t iir. nuL ii Ii irs. cr icc \ tb.
r arln 1 4 ci h
at n't'i 'hi tti. ri • "d 1 •t•rt 't,ittI.efl1 j't ni
jt.tP.Y. .
iid%L ti b' t'd in 'saiuati gilt. c d ii 't t.
,.1 is Coait do-- it". Lii'..I at. j.JOLit.u a titt1t tilt 1
Lh
V i?L'ii
I I
al'. mctd 01 hehait c'f the s
t
pett tiac c,uxmcl H" irt re'sd ih
tract',. i r tXi rd in. L pwt )f tjj. c i'. i t.,t *itctE.ls
lb Ce 'i ti it (It L II'.)
1 " ii lu an Ic tb'.. Dun ct' 't the I rban I •nct
(ulug ct t 1
-ic
'.. ant in o 'aoran i.' (tic Lit t
bicc.u. n. .;.ich n ads .t undc.r I • •4g ICI',/ '41.1 is'i 15ti. ib"il 4?ft. I".. i.e' ci I •' .-kt f1' ..'['zit.. S'j "b I •.ø% •?
B..gcnil ba... It n' • .
'C. Il L' . 4'.j., ,tsha A.n's.a' ,Z, 'r
•lb'• 0 .
If.. a.?' 5,fl 1.1.1 ' in.
jUt'.'.c'IJ'l,t i.kUgl? " CII .1 ' ' • r •
ft. C. i •. '
• 71 •'(• :' 0..'...
. fli.1I tit'.?,S c;jj.'ft q' II.. ii
iLL 0"l .4 , in : •', i , • '7 'S
L .•
b • 'pg
.
5 r •.i,?,_,.
),. 1'. 1 ' a 's•g '
'!, . 'j.:'g • --. • I'
3 'ji . • '
• LI 'ui'' st.,,'
I a
, • . -S
St
14
, har wid'i z t I g ',iid pd:a;'npl; r 'c ik nut a' 1i'i. itrs
sCilIeIa...tl)e 'Wi 't'i' i• %i1,, Ii cititit 'trc p i
uis it: tie 1
.qe
' nup.. ' ,a L•ouc, ret
,f tha p lLr?l i clear!' 'tit t1s th it tip 1
1 4ut• ! 13.LI .tt,t,i h,.
LIIIPLS ôt Ikzaun U bu' \I'i ix O U
ni' C v
sit.
ha juni 's tI' rhar I in (ndtcpuiedIx the
' t law :tt
ruitione s tathts n,ust.lt luc I lu du a atior. imdtr he
roi flns N t
tr
n ii talk
1 Ceil•ni, %st In det rniatic.i I I
•x.'' elding 'nd ' the sit! \c S'i 'F arplLflton st's "nnsidereu
bs t%. jnrisdu.'t rat u hw't nd t ' c. ncluced 'ii ,Pit -- fl
'l icldi n. t iii & p rut ter I rtbt,r ' fl$ 'it 'I
t' J%' , I t1i C It
1
'llj)i I c ,dt,r js$%
k'i
Vfl4jw'SLILIIU l1n,Itct •' I- r ,,'l1ttli I i JU%i
a i... i •jriss.,;r iy'--,r '
:
4 c 'IP L
\Ic.fct flCi.4Ue. ) ))bç
) flC) 14 .r. .r
t (1.I't (i •1'i
,t,.. l,t,e.t1iengIt.1t
": 4
c. .r
t st
1
'ri. I.i' '1 i' 'ei 1 ': II
'si.t •ii,
'b%a
S it :1%. £ '' • £3
• .fl.1' i I t' i... ti• a. •t.( : ii
g
1
a •
:15:
it is no doubt true that the Govt. Advocate has got responsibility to place the facts correctly and honestly befo re the Court as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao reported in (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 71. In the matter on hand the Govt. Adv ocate has placed the facts correctly and honestly before the Court.
However, it seems. while the statement of objection was being typed, the bonafide mistake has crept in. which is entitled to be condoned.
In view of the above, the order dated 15.06.2012 passed in W.P. No. 67162/2009 & 6716312009, does not require modification.
Sd JUDGE bvv