Karnataka High Court
Sri Muddaiah Dead By His Lrs vs Sri Jinga Ram Bhovi Since Dead By His Lrs on 11 December, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 40517/2011(LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Muddaiah
Since dead, by his
Legal Representatives are
(a) Sri M.Gundappa
Son of late Muddaiah
Aged about 63 years,
Resident at Mariyappana Palya
Village, Mallathahalli Post,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(b) Sri M.Marilingegowda
Son of late Muddaiah
Aged about 52 years,
Resident at Mariyappana Palya
Village, Mallathahalli Post,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(c) Smt Gowramma
Wife of Late Rajanna
Aged about 60 years,
2
Resident at Mariyappana Palya
Village, Mallathahalli Post,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(d) Smt Vijayalakshmi
Wife of Late Rajanna
Aged about 39 years,
Resident at Mariyappana Palya
Village, Mallathahalli Post,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(e) Smt Pankaja
Wife of Late Nagaraj
Aged about 50 years,
Resident at Mariyappana Palya
Village, Mallathahalli Post,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(f) Sri Anil Kumar
Son of late Nagaraj
Aged about 25 years,
Resident at Mariyappana Palya
Village, Mallathahalli Post,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(g) Sri M.Puttaswamy
Son of late Muddaiah
Aged about 47 years,
Resident at Mariyappana Palya
Village, Mallathahalli Post,
Bangalore South Taluk.
..PETITIONERS
(By Shri. T.Seshagiri Rao,Advocate)
3
AND:
1. Sri Jinga Ram Bhovi
Since dead, by his Legal
Representatives are
(a) Smt Peddakka
Daughter of Solapuri Bhovi
Aged Major
Resident at Nagadevanahalli
Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(b) Smt Salamma
Daughter of Solapuri Bhovi
Aged Major
Resident at Nagadevanahalli
Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(c) Smt Munivenkatamma
Daughter of Solapuri Bhovi
Aged Major
Resident at Arapanahalli
Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
(d) Smt Venkatamma
Daughter of Solapuri Bhovi
Aged Major
Resident at No.65, Nagadevanahalli
Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
4
2. Kuvempu Noothana Griha Nirmana
Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
3. The Speical Land Acquisition Officer
Bangalore Development Authority
Sankey Road, Bangalore - 20.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. M.Narayana Reddy, Advocate for
Respondent No.1(a) and (c) - Absent,
Sri K.M.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for
Respondent No.1(d)
Respondent No.1(b) served
Respondent No.2 service of notice held sufficient.
Sri M.N.Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for
Respondent No.3 )
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated
29.03.11 one passed by the II Additional City Civil Judge,
Bangalore.
This petition coming on for Hearing this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for respondent no.3.
5
2. The facts, as stated by the petitioners, are that the land in Survey No.26, Block no.19, of Nagadevanahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 2 acres, was originally granted to one Jingaram Bhovi on 10.8.1953. It transpires that it was sold in favour of one Nanjundappa under a sale deed dated 1.6.1964. Nanjundappa, in turn, is said to have sold it in favour of Madaiah, under a sale deed dated 15.6.1964. Madaiah, in turn, is said to have sold it in favour of Mallamma, who had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 3.9.1965 and Mallamma, in turn, had sold to Annamalai, who has purchased it under a sale deed dated 29.10.1966 and Annamalai had sold it to Muddaiah, under a sale deed dated 4.6.1968. Muddaiah is said to be the father of the petitioners herein.
It transpires that respondents 1(a) to (d), claiming as the descendants of Jingaram Bhovi, had filed an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,1978 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL Act', for brevity. That 6 application was disposed of by an order dated 20.11.1982 rejecting the claim of the respondents, holding that Jingaram Bhovi had sold the property after the non-alienation period prescribed under the terms of the grant and hence there was no violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. An appeal was preferred against that order before the Deputy Commissioner, who by an order dated 6.8.1999, had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the matter was remanded for a fresh inquiry. On such remand, a fresh order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 31.12.2001, holding that the alienation by Jingaram in favour of Nanjundappa dated 1.6.1964 was in violation of the PTCL Act and declared the sale deed in favour of Nanjundappa as null and void. This had the effect of nullifying the subsequent sale deeds, including the one in favour of the father of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners feeling aggrieved, had preferred an appeal against the order dated 31.12.2001 in an appeal in RA 19/2005-06. That appeal was dismissed by an order dated 4.8.2006, confirming the order of the Assistant 7 Commissioner. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal was challenged in a writ petition before this court in WP 17538/2007, which in turn, was dismissed by this court on 23.6.2010. An appeal was filed before a division bench of this court in WA 2869/2010, which was ultimately disposed of on 11.3.2011. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the land in question is said to have been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority, pursuant to the acquisition proceedings under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA Act', for brevity).
The second respondent, a house building co-operative society, in order to arrive at the rate of compensation, had conducted proceedings and since it transpires that there was a dispute raised as regards the ownership by the petitioners and the first respondent, the matter had been referred to the competent civil court in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act', for brevity). The civil court, which had assigned a case number, as 8 LAC 147/1996, had conducted the proceedings and by order dated 29.3.2011, disposed of the reference holding that respondents 1(a) to (d) were entitled to receive the compensation, which was in deposit in a sum of Rs.4,63,989/-, with interest and solatium, on the declaration that respondents (a) to (d) were indeed the legal representatives of the deceased Jingaram. It is the case of the petitioners that Jingaram is known to have died issueless and therefore, the petitioners seeking to claim under him is inexplicable and obviously a false claim without any basis. This aspect of the matter having been brought to the attention of the division bench, which was seized of the appeal filed by the petitioners herein in WA 2869/2010, the division bench of this court, while disposing of the writ appeal had made the following observation:
" So far as respondents 3 to 6 are concerned, an enquiry has to be held as to whether they have succeeded to the property of Jingaram Bovi as his legal representatives who died issueless and at that 9 time, the Government would decide about the compensation to be awarded."
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that when such a direction was issued by the division bench of this court, the reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act was pending on the file of the Civil Court in LAC No.147/1996, but the observations by this court, could not be placed before the lower court prior to the court passing its order dated 29.3.2011 and therefore, there was no proper inquiry on the aspect, whether respondents 1(a) to (d) were, in fact, the legal representatives of Jingaram. It is this primary contention which is sought to be urged in this petition.
4. Incidentally, the judgment of the division bench in WA 2869/2010 is concerned, is subject matter of challenge in a special leave petition before the apex court and the same is pending consideration. It is in view of that circumstance that the present writ petition was filed and that this court has granted an order of 10 stay of further proceedings by its order dated 11.11.2011 and any disposal of this petition, without ascertaining the bona fides of respondents (a) to (d), in the present circumstances, result in the said respondents deriving an illegal and illegitimate benefit of the amount of compensation and that in the interest of public revenue that is involved, even if the petitioners have no subsisting interest in the lands in question, subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition that is pending before the Supreme Court, would seek intervention of this court to restrain the respondents from withdrawing that amount, subject to a further inquiry by the court to determine whether or not the said respondents were the legal representatives of Jingaram.
It is in this background that the petitioners seek quashing of Annexures -C and F to the writ petition. Annexure - C is the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the Civil Court in LAC 147/1996, holding that respondents 1(a) to (d) were entitled to compensation that was in deposit. Annexure-F is an order that is subsequently passed by the same court, at the instance of the 11 present petitioners, seeking review of its earlier order holding respondents 1(a) to (d) as the legal representatives of Jingaram. That application also having been rejected, the petitioners seek the intervention of this court.
5. Given the above facts and circumstances, the fact remains that the petitioners' claim to the land in question is no longer res integra as admittedly, the sale deed executed by Jingaram, in the first instance, being within the non-alienation period, the same has been declared as null and void under the provisions of the PTCL Act and that has been affirmed in appeal as well as in writ proceedings before this court, culminating in the judgment of the division bench. Notwithstanding the observations of the division bench, that an inquiry be conducted in disbursing the compensation in favour of respondents 1(a) to (d), that inquiry has been held as reflected in Annexures - C and F. The petitioner expressing dissatisfaction as to the completeness of the inquiry or the evidence that has been adduced by respondents 1(a) to (d), in discharge of the burden to establish that they are 12 indeed the legal representatives of Jingaram, is not the concern of the petitioners. The court having been satisfied as to the bona fides of respondents 1(a) to (d), on a repeated consideration, at the instance of the petitioners as aforementioned, there is no warrant to interfere with the finding of fact in this regard. Notwithstanding that the petitioners claim to have filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, there is no warrant for interference by this court in the above circumstances.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv