Karnataka High Court
Sri S M Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.12056 OF 2008 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.M. RAMESH
S/O LATE SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/AT SARJAPURA VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. L. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 001
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
W/O LATE SRI NANJUNDAIAHA,
ADISONNAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANDAPURA POST
2
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
4. SRI RAMACHANDRA
MAJOR
S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH
MUGULOOR VILLAGE
KOOGUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT
5. SMT. SHARADHA
MAJOR
D/O LATE SRI NANJUNDAIAH
W/O SRI NAGARAJA,
11TH CROSS, 5TH CROSS,
VIDYAJOTHI NAGARA
HONGASANDRA,
BEGUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068.
6. SMT. GEETHA
MAJOR
D/O LATE SRI. NANJUNDAIAH
W/O SRI NAGARAJA,
11TH CROSS, 5TH CROSS,
VIDYAJOTHI NAGARA
HONGASANDRA,
BEGUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068.
7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
W/O LATE SRI NANJUNDAIAH
MUGULOOR VILLAGE, KOOGUR POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
8. SMT. N. BHARATHI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI NANJUNDAIAH
ADISONNAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANDAPURA POST
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT
3
9. SRI A. RAMACHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA @ ANNAYAPPA
MUGULOOR VILLAGE, KOOGUR POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
10. SRI. V. VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALAPPA
MUGALUR VILLAGE, KOOGUR POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
11. SRI V. NANDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALAPPA
MUGALUR VILLAGE, KOOGUR POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
12. SRI. V. RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI VENKATACHALAPPA
MUGALUR VILLAGE, KOOGUR POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
13. SRI. V. UMESH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI VENKATACHALAPPA
MUGALUR VILLAGE, KOOGUR POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
14. SRI V. NAVANEETH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI VENKATACHALAPPA
MUGALUR VILLAGE, KOOGUR POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
4
15. SRI. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI BYANNA
THINDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA POST
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
16. SRI M. ANJANI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI BANOL MUNIYAPPA
MUGALOOR VILLAGE, KOOGUR POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
17. SRI PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI VENAKTAPPA
R/AT MUGALOOR VILLAGE,
KOOGUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
18. SRI BALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
R/O MUGALOOR VILLAGE,
KOOGUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
19. SRI. BALAPPA C.,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. KONDAPPA
MUGALOOR VILLAGE,
KOOGUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
20. SRI. M.S. SRIKANTAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.s
20(a) SMT. M.S.VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE M.S.SRIKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
20(b) SRI. M.S.SHASHI KUMAR
S/O LATE M.S.SRIKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
5
20(c) SMT. M.S.SARASWATHY
D/O LATE M.S.SRIKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
NO.105, KATRIGUPPE GRAMATANA,
5TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
BSK IIIRD STAGE,
BANGALORE-560085.
21. M/S EXCEL DWELLINGS INDIA PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.243, 10TH CROSS,
NGEF LAYOUT, NRUPATHUNGANAGAR,
NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE-560072. Respondent Nos.21
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR and 22 deleted vide
MR. SRIDHAR REDDY MUMMA REDDY Court order dated
09.12.2021.
22. MR. SRIDHAR REDDY MUMMA REDDY
MAJOR BY AGE,
M/S EXCEL DWELLINGS INDIA PVT. LTD.
NO.243, 10TH CROSS,
NGEF LAYOUT, NRUPATHUNGANAGAR,
NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE-560072.
23. SRI. M. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT MUGALURU VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.
24. SRI. C. CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT MUGALURU VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.
6
25. M/S EXCEL DWELLINGS INDIA PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.243, 10TH CROSS,
NGEF LAYOUT, NRUPATHUNGANAGAR,
NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE-560072.
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. MOHAMMED MERAJ
26. MR. MOHAMMED MERAJ
M/S EXCEL DWELLINGS INDIA PVT. LTD.
NO.243, 10TH CROSS,
NGEF LAYOUT, NRUPATHUNGANAGAR,
NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE-560072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R.SRINIVAS, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI. S.K.VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.3
TO 9 AND 11 TO 13;
SMT. K.K.THAYAMMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.20;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOs.17, 18, 19, 20(b), 20(c)
& 23 AND UNREPRESENTED;
SMT. PARVATHI R. NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.25
AND 26;
SRI. G. KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH
SMT. APARNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.16;
RESPONDENT NO.13 IS THE SPECIAL GPA HOLDER FOR
RESPONDENT NOs.10, 14 AND 15;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.24 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.10.2021;
SRI. V.F.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.3 TO 9;
7
SRI. GIRISH V. MANGANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NOs.10 TO 15;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 09.12.2021 RESPONDENT NOs.21
AND 22 ARE DELETED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2004 PASSED BY THE LAND
TRIBUNAL, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL IN L.R.F. NO.118/1984-85
VIDE ANENXURE-H AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.06.2022 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.02.2004 passed by the respondent No.2 in L.R.F. No.118/1984-85, by which it registered the predecessors of the respondent Nos.3 to 15 as occupants of the land bearing Sy.No.90 (0.22 guntas) and Sy.No.128 (6.20 acres) of Mugaluru Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk.
2. For the purpose of easy understanding, the petitioner herein is the purchaser of two portions of land bearing Sy.No.128, measuring 2 acres and 5 acres and Sy.No.90, measuring 22 guntas of Mugaluru village from 8 the Landlord/erstwhile holder of the village office of Shanbhog of Mugaluru village. The respondent Nos.3 to 9 are the legal heirs of the tenant- Sri. Muniyappa, while respondent Nos.10 to 15 are the legal heirs of the tenant- Sri. Byanna. The respondent Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19 are the alleged agreement holders of the land in Sy.No.128, which were executed by the landlord-respondent No.20. The respondent No.20 is the landlord of the property bearing Sy.Nos.128 and 90 of Mugaluru village. Respondent Nos.21 and 22 were given up as they were arrayed as respondent Nos.25 and 26. The respondent Nos.23 and 24 are the purchasers of 01 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.128 of Mugaluru village from the respondent No.20 and his family members. The respondent No.25 is the purchaser of 06 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.128 of Mugaluru village from respondent Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and
14. Respondent No.26 is the Director of respondent No.25.
9
3. The indisputable facts that can be gathered from concluded litigation between the parties are as below:
The subject land is 22 guntas in Sy.No.90 and a portion of land measuring 6 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.128 of Mugaluru Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk and were emoluments attached to the village office of Shanbhog. The father of respondent No.20 was the holder of the village office, until it was abolished under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as "KVOA Act" for short). The father of respondent No.20 was re-granted the subject lands and land in other survey numbers by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-division, in terms of the order dated 29.05.1971. During the lifetime of the father of respondent No.20, an application was filed by Muniyappa (predecessor of respondent Nos.3 to 9) claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.90, 12 and 13/2 of Mugaluru Village, which was registered as LRF.ATC.58/1975-76. The Tribunal in terms of its 10 penultimate order dated 30.11.2002 granted the occupancy rights in favour of Muniyappa, which became final since W.P.No.2980/2003 filed by the landlord challenging the order of the Land Tribunal was withdrawn on 25.07.2012 by filing a memo in W.A.No.1721/2012. These lands are not the subject matter of this writ petition, but were the subject matter of the first claim for occupancy and hence, shall be referred as the "First application".
4. The father of respondent No.20 died in the year 1978 and hence respondent No.20 succeeded to the estate and the revenue records stood transferred to his name. The respondent No.20 allegedly entered into an agreement with Sri. M. Anjani, Sri.Papaiah, Sri. Balappa and Sri. Balappa. C (respondent Nos.16 to 19 ) on 24.08.1982, agreeing to sell portions of land in Sy.No.128 of Mugaluru village and allegedly placed them in possession. The said Sri. M. Anjani, Sri.Papaiah, Sri. Balappa and Sri. Balappa. C alleging that Sri. Byanna, the 11 father of the respondent No.15, attempted to interfere with their possession, filed O.S.Nos.36/1985 to 39/1985 for perpetual injunction before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anekal.
5. In the meanwhile, Muniyappa and Byanna filed separate applications claiming occupancy rights in respect of 22 guntas in Sy.No.90 and 6-20 acres in Sy.No.128 of Mugaluru village on 23.02.1984 (henceforth referred as "second applications"). The second applications were dismissed on the ground that they were filed beyond the time allowed under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as "KLR Act" for short). An appeal in LRA No.170/1987 was preferred before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, and on its abolition, C.P.No.7/1995 was registered before this Court. This Court in terms of the order dated 04.04.1995, rejected the petition on the ground that it was filed belatedly. Thereafter, W.A.No.2014/1995 was filed. The 12 Division bench of this Court in terms of the judgment dated 08.09.1997, held as follows:
"Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The case is remanded with the observation that the application filed by the appellants for seeking condonation of delay in filing the Civil Petition under Section 17 of the Amendment Act may be considered and disposed of on merits after affording the other side an opportunity to rebut the allegations made therein."
6. After remand, the learned Single Judge allowed C.P.No.7/1995 and registered W.P.No.32142/1998 and in terms of the order dated 05.01.1999, remitted the case back to the Tribunal to consider whether the application filed for grant of occupancy rights was within time and thereafter, dispose off the application on merits. The Tribunal noticed that the State Government had issued a notification bearing No.RD.61.MVS(1)63 dated 01.12.1993, by which it amended Rule 4 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961, which read as follows: 13
"Amendment of Rule 4: In sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961 for the words and figures "Thirtieth June 1982", the words and figures "Thirty First March, 1984" shall be and shall be deemed always to have been substituted."
7. It also noticed that the State Government had issued a communication bearing No.RD.33.INM.83 dated 05.01.1984 that the time for filing applications for registration of occupancy rights in respect of agricultural lands coming under the purview of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act and Rules was extended upto 31.03.1984. The Tribunal therefore, held that the appointed day to file applications for conferment of occupancy rights was extended upto 31.03.1984. The Tribunal noticed that the "second applications" were filed on 23.02.1984 and held that the applications were maintainable in terms of the order dated 24.02.2001. This order was challenged by the respondent No.20 before this Court in W.P.No.10077/2001, wherein it was contended that the last date for filing Form No.7 before the Land 14 Tribunal was 30.06.1979, while the application in the present case was filed on 23.02.1984 and therefore, the application was belated. This Court in terms of the order dated 12.09.2001 held, "The claim made by the petitioner terming under Form No.7, he did not mean to say that the original respondent No.4 did not make the claim under the concerned Act.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the original respondent No.4 had filed the claim in Form No.7 as if the same was filed under the Land Reforms Act. Therefore, it appears to me that the Land Tribunal had rightly appreciated that position and overruled the objection raised by the petitioner and held the point of maintainability against the petitioner. Hence, I do not find merit in the instant petition. The writ petition therefore fails and accordingly stands rejected."
8. The respondent No.20 challenged this order before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.6079/2001, which too was dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 12.06.2003. Thereafter, the Tribunal held proceedings and 15 in terms of the order dated 03.02.2004 granted occupancy rights in favour of the applicants. This was again challenged by the landlord before this Court in W.P.No.6795/2004. However, in the meanwhile, the landlord had allegedly sold Sy.Nos.90 and 128 to the petitioner in terms of the sale deed dated 01.04.2004, which prompted the respondent No.3 to challenge the same before this Court in W.P.No.14947/2005. An application was filed by the petitioner herein to come on record as one of the petitioners in W.P.No.6795/2004 on the ground that the respondent No.20 had conveyed the properties. However, the respondent No.20 withdrew W.P.No.6795/2004 on 11.07.2008. The Tahasildar had issued Form No.10 in respect of the aforesaid land on 13.02.2004. It is thereafter that the present writ petition is filed by the purchaser challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 03.02.2004. This Court in terms of the order dated 05.02.2013 dismissed this writ petition on the ground that the sale deeds, under which the petitioner purchased the land in question were null and void. This 16 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.2778/2013. The Division Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 10.03.2020 set aside the order dated 05.02.2013 and remitted the case for decision afresh.
9. In so far as the suits filed in O.S.Nos.36/1985 to 39/1985 referred above, they were dismissed. Later, in the appeals filed in R.A.Nos.56/1995 to 59/1995, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree and granted perpetual injunction. The predecessors of the respondent Nos.3 to 9 herein filed RSA No.692/2000 to 695/2000 challenging the said decrees on that ground that they were tenants in occupation of the land in question. This Court disposed of the appeals holding that, "It is obvious that having regard to the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, the Tribunal shall independently hold an enquiry uninfluenced by the Judgment and Decree to decide the case of the appellant about his application for registering him as an occupant and if he is granted tenancy rights, the interest of the appellant is well 17 safeguarded by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The appeals are rejected with the above observations."
10. Now turning to the facts of this case, the petitioner claims to have purchased 22 guntas in Sy.No.90 and a portion of land measuring 7 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.128 of Mugaluru Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, in terms of two sale deeds dated 26.02.2004 and 01.04.2004 from respondent No.20, since deceased. The petitioner claimed that these lands were never cultivated by any tenant either on 01.02.1963 or on 01.03.1974 or at any point of time. He alleged that Muniyappa, the grandfather of respondent Nos.3 to 8 and father of the respondent No.9 filed the "first application" in 1975-76 for occupancy right in respect of 1 acre in Sy.No.90 of Mugaluru Village. Thereafter, he filed a "second application" in the year 1984 claiming 22 guntas in Sy.No.90. The petitioner contended that the second application filed in the year 1984 was barred. Likewise, Byanna, the father of the respondent No.15 filed an 18 application in the year 1984 claiming 6 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.128 of Mugaluru Village. The petitioner alleged that these applications, though barred, were entertained by the respondent No.2 and occupancy rights were granted in terms of the order dated 03.02.2004. He contended that respondent No.20 filed W.P.No.6795/2004 before this Court, where an interim order was granted. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.20 without disclosing the pendency of the writ petition, sold the properties to him. The petitioner, hence, filed an application in W.P.No.6795/2004 to come on record as a co-petitioner. When the writ petition was listed for orders, respondent No.20 filed a memo for dismissal of the writ petition, which was allowed. The petitioner claimed that he had stepped into the shoes of respondent No.20 and was therefore, entitled to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2 and thus, filed the present writ petition.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended as follows:
19
a) Form No.7 filed on 15.02.1984 was not maintainable as it was filed beyond the time allowed. He relied on the following judgment a. R. Rudraiah and another vs. State of Karnataka and others [AIR 1998 SC 1070]
b) That the tenant could file only one application and the subsequent application by Muniyappa was barred. He further contended that the tenant Muniyappa was not a tenant in 0-22 guntas in Sy.No.90 and assuming he was, then by filing the first application in respect of 1-00 acre in Sy.No.90, he had surrendered tenancy in respect of 22 guntas and therefore, could not sustain his claim in respect of 22 guntas. He relied upon the following judgments:-
a. Giriyappa and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [2000 (1) KCCR 551] b. Davalsab vs. The State of Karnataka and others [2008 (1) KCCR 439];
c. Francis Rebello vs. K. Vimala and others [2008 (3) KCCR 2109];20
d. Sri. K. Ramegowda vs. The State of Karnataka and others [2006 (4) KCCR 2514];
e. Sri. Giriyappa Gowda vs. State of
Karnataka and others [2008 (4) KCCR
2715];
f. Parameshwar Timmayya Hegde and others vs. Venkataraman Manjappa Hegde and others [ILR 2000 KAR 3170].
g. Arun Kumar vs. State of Karnataka and another [2008 AIR SCW 3199]
c) That Byanna, the father of the respondent No.15 was brother of Muniyappa and therefore, had no independent right to claim occupancy rights.
d) The re-grant order in favour of Sri. M.S. Subbaiah was not challenged. That the barawardar register did not show that the lands in question were cultivated by tenants.
e) That in view of the judgment and decree passed in R.A.Nos.56/1995 to 59/1995, the possession of the properties in question had to be recovered as provided under Section 7 of the KLR Act, failing 21 which, an application for grant of occupancy rights is not maintainable. He relied upon the following judgments:
a. Balesha Rama Khot and others vs. Land Tribunal, Chikodi and others [1978 (1) Kar.L.J. 116];
b. Nanjunda Bhatta S.V. vs. State of Karnataka and others [1979 (2) Kar.L.J. 167];
c. Simon Rebello vs. David Souza and others [1972 (2) Mys. L.J.163];
d. Duregappa (Deceased) by LR vs. State of Karnataka and others [2004 (4) Kar.L.J. 32].
e. Lakshmi Shedthi vs. Mahalinga Shetty [1972(1) Mys. L.J. SN 191]
f) Since the land in question was inam land, the tenants ought to have been in possession as on 01.02.1963 or on 01.03.1974 to claim occupancy rights under the KLR Act. That the tenants did not produce any material evidence in this regard. But, the Tribunal entertained the claim based on 22 assumptions. He relied upon the judgment in N.C. Gangaraju (Since dead) by his L.Rs. and another vs. State of Karnataka and another [2009 (5) KCCR 3807] and Hanumanthaiah and Smt. Gangamma (deceased) by L.Rs. vs. The Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore and others [2003 (3) KLJ 482].
g) There was no tangible evidence to prove the tenancy except self serving oral evidence. He relied upon the judgment in a. S. Mallikarjunappa vs. The State of Karnataka and others [ILR 2004 KAR 2119] b. Jayamma vs. Maria Bai (deceased) by proposed LRs and another [2004(4)KCCR 2154] c. Narayanagouda M.S. vs. Girijamma and another [1976 (2) Kar. L.J. 254] d. Smt. May Fernandes vs. The Land Tribunal, Mangalore and others [2000 (4) KCCR SN 356] 23 e. Gangappa Yamanappa Chalawadi vs. The State of Karnataka and others [2007 (4) KCCR 2765] He contended that the revenue entries throughout showed the name of the respondent No.20 and therefore, these entries had to be presumed to be correct and the application filed by Byanna must have been rejected. He relied on a judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Srikantegowda vs. Land Reforms Tribunal, Thirthahalli and others [1977 (2) Kar. L.J. 126].
12. The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 to 13, who have filed a detailed statement of objections contending that Sy.No.90 and Sy.No.128 of Mugaluru Village were service inam lands endowed to the village office of Shanbhog. They claimed that M.S. Subbaiah-father of respondent No.20 was the Shanbhog, who was cultivating the aforesaid land through Muniyappa and Byanna. The said persons filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy right in respect of the aforesaid land 24 on 23.02.1984. They further claimed that they were not aware of the agreement executed by respondent No.20 in favour of the respondent Nos.16 to 19 herein on 24.08.1982. They claimed that respondent No.20 did not deliver possession of the land to the respondent Nos.16 to
19. They claimed that it was Muniyappa and Byanna, who were in possession of the land and that the suits filed in O.S.Nos.36/1985 to 39/1985 were fraudulent. They contended that this Court sitting in appeal against the judgment and decree in R.A.Nos.56/1995 to 59/1995, held in RSA Nos.692/2000 to 695/2000 that "the Tribunal shall independently hold an enquiry uninfluenced by the Judgment and Decree to decide the case of the appellant about his application for registering as an occupant and if he is granted tenancy right, the interest of the appellant is well safeguarded by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act". Therefore, they contended that decree in R.A.Nos.56/1995 to 59/1995 cannot materially affect their right to seek occupancy rights. They alleged that the petitioner was not the owner in possession of the 25 properties in question and the sale deed dated 23.02.2004 in respect of 2 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.128 is not valid. Likewise, the purchase of 5 acres in Sy.No.128 and 22 guntas in Sy.No.90 of Mugaluru Village in terms of the sale deed 01.04.2004 is invalid and prohibited under the KLR Act. They contended that the Land Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties and passed the impugned order dated 03.02.2004. The sale deeds in favour of the petitioner were subsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore, were invalid. They claimed that respondent No.20, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 03.02.2004, challenged it in W.P.No.6795/2004. However, in view of the memo filed by him on 11.07.2008, the petition was dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, they contended that the petitioner can seek redressal for recovery of his money by filing appropriate proceedings against respondent No.20. They claimed that the petitioner had not stepped into the shoes of the landlord and therefore, cannot challenge the order dated 03.02.2004. They specifically contended that in view 26 of the judgment of this Court in Pundaleekappa vs. The Land Tribunal, Bijapur [ILR 2004 KAR Short Notes 64] the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal. They further contended that they had filed W.P.No.14947/2005 against the State Government, the Land Tribunal, the landlord, petitioner herein and the Sub-Inspector of Police for a declaration that the sale deed dated 01.04.2004 executed by the landlord in favour of the petitioner was null and void. Therefore, they contended that the petitioner was aware of the grant of occupancy rights and he must have challenged the same in accordance with law. Therefore, they contended that the present petition is the second petition filed, challenging the order passed by the land Tribunal dated 03.02.2004 and therefore, the same is not maintainable. They contended that the RTCs at Annexures
- D1 to D8 and E1 to E14 produced by the petitioner had no presumptive value as it was the father of respondent No.20, who had entered the revenue records. 27
13. The respondent No.20 filed his objections contending that he had not conveyed the land bearing Sy.No.128 measuring 7 acres 2 guntas and Sy.No.90 measuring 22 guntas as claimed by the petitioner. He claimed that the petitioner took undue advantage of the precarious health condition of respondent No.20 and represented to him to execute three power of attorney, as there were three cases pending before this Court. He alleged that the petitioner took him to the Sub-Registrar's office and took signatures on documents that were stated to be powers of attorney.
14. The respondent Nos.21 to 26 were subsequently impleaded at the behest of the petitioner. The respondent Nos.21 and 22 were deleted as there was a duplication of the names. They claimed that the contesting respondent Nos.10 to 14 and their family members sold the properties in question in favour of the respondent No.25 on 20.05.2013. They claimed that the respondent No.20 had sold another portion of the land to 28 the respondent Nos.23 and 24 in terms of a sale deed dated 18.03.2014 and that the said respondents had executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Sanivarapu Sudharani on 20.10.2015 and that later, she entered into a memorandum of understanding with the respondent No.21 on 01.06.2016.
15. I have considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the records of the Land Tribunal in detail.
16. A perusal of the writ petition as well as the objections filed by the respondents disclose that the land bearing Sy.No.128 and Sy.No.90 of Mugaluru Village were service inam lands that were endowed to the village office of Shanbhog of Mugaluru. The "first application" filed by Muniyappa (predecessor of respondent Nos.3 to 9) for occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.90, 12 and 13/2 of Mugaluru Village, which was registered as LRF.ATC.58/75- 76 was allowed by the Tribunal on 30.11.2002 and occupancy rights were conferred in favour of Muniyappa, 29 which became final since W.P.No.2980/2003 filed by the landlord challenging the order of the Land Tribunal was withdrawn on 25.07.2012 by filing a memo in W.A.No.1721/2012.
17. The order re-granting Sy.No.90 and Sy.No.128 and other survey numbers of Mugaluru Village in favour of the holder of the office of Shanbhog in case No.(A)511/69- 70 discloses the total extent of land in Sy.No.90 as 1 acre 22 guntas and in Sy.No.128 as 11 acres 18 guntas. The revenue records in respect of Sy.No.128 from the year 1969-70 till the year 1982-83 disclose that father of respondent No.20 (M.S. Subbaiah) was cultivating the said land. It was only in the year 1983-84 that the name of Venkataramanappa was entered in the revenue records, pursuant to the order passed by the Land Tribunal conferring 1-00 acre of land in Sy.No.128. From the year 1984-85 till the year 2007-08, the same status has continued. Likewise, in respect of Sy.No.90, the name of respondent No.20 was found in the cultivators column 30 from the year 1969-70 till the year 2006-07. The name of Muniyappa was entered in column No.9 of the RTC concerning one acre pursuant to mutation proceedings in M.R.No.20/2003. The pahani register for the year 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69 shows that these lands were cultivated for various crops.
18. After the State Government extended time for filing applications claiming occupancy rights under the KVOA Act, Muniyappa filed the second application claiming the remaining extent of 22 guntas in Sy.No.90. The brother of Muniyappa, namely, Byanna, filed an application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.128 of Mugaluru Village, measuring 6.20 acres. The Tribunal in terms of its order dated 02.03.1987, rejected the application on the ground that it was filed beyond the time prescribed under the KLR Act and that there was no provision for condonation of delay. An appeal was preferred in LRA No.170/1987 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore Rural. In view of the 31 Amendment Act 18 of 1990 to the KLR Act, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was abolished. Consequently, Muniyappa's children and Byanna's children filed Civil Petition No.7/1995 before this Court. This Court in terms of the Order dated 04.04.1995, rejected the petition as it was filed belatedly. Thereafter, W.A.No.2014/1995 was filed. The Division Bench of this Court in terms of the judgment dated 08.09.1997, allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the learned Single Judge. Following this judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed C.P.No.7/1995 and registered W.P.No.32142/1998 and in terms of the order dated 05.01.1999, remitted the case back to the Tribunal to consider whether the application filed for grant of occupancy rights was within time and thereafter dispose off the application on merits. The Tribunal noticed that the State Government had extended the time upto 31.03.1984 for filing applications for registration of occupancy rights in respect of agricultural lands coming under the purview of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act and Rules. The Tribunal noticed that 32 the "second applications" were filed on 23.02.1984 and held in terms of the order dated 24.02.2001, that the applications were maintainable. This order was challenged by the respondent No.20 before this Court in W.P.No.10077/2001 contending that the last date for filing Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal was 30.06.1979, while the application in the present case was filed on 23.02.1984 and therefore, the application was belated. This Court in terms of the order dated 12.09.2001 dismissed it. The respondent No.20 challenged this order before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.6079/2001, which too was dismissed in terms of the order dated 12.06.2003. Thereafter, the Tribunal held proceedings and in terms of the order dated 03.02.2004 granted occupancy rights in favour of the applicants. This was again challenged by the landlord before this Court in W.P.No.6795/2004. In the meanwhile, the Tahasildar issued Form No.10 in respect of the aforesaid land on 13-02-2004. The respondent No.20 without awaiting the outcome of the proceedings sold Sy.Nos.90 and 128 to the petitioner in terms of the sale 33 deed dated 01.04.2004, which prompted the respondent No.3 to challenge the sale deed before this Court in W.P.No.14947/2005. The petitioner attempted to implead himself in W.P.No.6795/2004 on the ground that the respondent No.20 had conveyed the properties. However, the respondent No.20 withdrew the W.P.No.6795/2004 on 11.07.2008. It is thereafter that the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner-purchaser challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 03.02.2004. This Court in terms of the order dated 05.02.2013 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the sale deeds, under which the petitioner purchased the land in question were null and void. This was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.2778/2013. The Division Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 10.03.2020 set aside the order dated 05.02.2013 and remitted the case for decision afresh.
19. This Court in terms of the Order dated 22.01.2009, held that the locus of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order would arise for 34 consideration. Hence, the question of locus standi of the petitioner is first dealt hereunder.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being the purchaser from the landlord had stepped into the shoes of the landlord and was therefore, entitled to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal. In this regard, he relied upon the following decisions :
a) Kumari Lata vs. Sri. Shivaji Rao and others [ILR 2018 KAR 95], which related to impleadment of a party in suit for specific performance, who was not party to a sale agreement.
b) Amit Kumar Shaw and another vs. Farida Khatoon and another [2005 (3) KCCR 1834], which also related to impleadment of a transferee pendente lite in a suit for declaration of title, where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that such transferee is an assignee under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC and should be impleaded.
c) Raj Kumar vs. Sardari Lal and others [ILR 2004 KAR 1148], where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a transferee 35
pendente lite is a representative in interest of the judgment debtor and bringing such transferee on record is in the absolute discretion of the court.
d) Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and another vs. Vishnu Hari Patil and others [(1983) 1 SCC 18], where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a transferee pendente lite in a suit for partition has a right to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings before any order is made under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC.
e) Sri. K.S. Lokaiah vs. M.B. Shivaraya and others [2007 (2) KCCR 1076], where this Court held that a transferee pendente lite in a suit for declaration and possession was a successor in interest and was therefore, entitled to pursue the execution petition.
f) Mrs. Pushparekha vs. Smt. Abhirami Srikanth and others [2016 (1) KCCR 128], wherein a suit for ejectment allowed a transferee pendente lite to pursue the execution petition.
g) Sri. M. Narayana and another vs. Smt. Ramakka and others [2016 (2) KCCR 1300], where the subsequent purchaser in a suit for specific performance was held to be entitled to be brought on record.
36
h) K. Venkataramaiah Setty vs. B.R. Seetharamappa Setty and others [2007 (2) KCCR 1190], where this Court held that a transferee pendente lite is entitled to file an application for setting aside a decree passed against his transfer order.
i) Harikishan and others vs. Ramesh and others [2008 (3) KCCR 1350], where this Court held that if there is prima-facie satisfaction that a subsequent transferee has to be impleaded, it may do so, if his interest is substantial.
j) Thodar Anantha Bhandary vs. A. Rama Amin and another [1968 (2) Mys. L.J. 103], where this Court allowed a subsequent purchaser from the plaintiff in an eviction suit to be impleaded as a co-petitioner.
It is therefore, contended that the petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal.
21. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 16 submitted that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal since 37 he was arrayed as one of the respondents in W.P.No.14947/2005 and therefore, he ought to have filed the writ petition in time. He also contended that under the KVOA Act, the petitioner does not have any interest in a village office and is therefore, not a holder of a village office and hence, he is not entitled to contest the order passed by the land Tribunal. He further submitted that the holder had conceded to the claim of the tenants and therefore, the petitioner had no subsisting right to challenge the occupancy rights granted by the Tribunal. He further contended that the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner were subsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal and the respondent No.20 had no subsisting right to convey the property to the petitioner. Hence, he had no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal.
22. Section 8 of the KVOA Act holds the key to the above question and the same is extracted below: 38
"8. Application of tenancy law:- If any land granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State has been lawfully leased and such lease is subsisting on the appointed date, the provisions of the tenancy law for the time being in force in that area in which the land is situate shall apply to the said lease and the rights and liabilities of the person to whom such land is granted under Sections 5, 6 or 7 and his tenant or tenants shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be governed by the provisions of the said tenancy law."
23. Section 2(b) of the KVOA Act defines an "authorised holder" as follows:
"Authorised holder means a person in whose favour a land granted or continued in respect of, or annexed to, a village office by the State or a part thereof has been validly alienated permanently, whether by sale, gift, partition or otherwise, under the existing law relating to such village offices." 39
24. Section 2(g) of the KVOA Act defines a "holder of a village office" or "holder" as a person having an interest in a village office under an existing law relating to such office.
25. Section 2(n) of the KVOA Act defines a "village office" as every village office, to which emoluments have been attached and which was held hereditarily before the commencement of the Constitution under an existing law relating to a village office, for the performance of duties connected with the administration or collection of the revenue or with the maintenance of order or with the settlement of boundaries or other matter of civil administration of a village, whether the services originally appertaining to the office continue or have ceased to be performed or demanded and by whatsoever designation the office may be locally known.
Section 2(e) defines "Emoluments" as, -
(i) Lands,
40
(ii) assignments of revenue payable in respect of lands,
(iii) fees in money or agricultural produce,
(iv) money salaries and all other kinds of remuneration,
granted or continued in respect of, or annexed to , any village office, by the State;
A reading of the above provisions, makes it clear that the petitioner, being the purchaser of the inam lands, held an interest in the emoluments attached to the Village Office and therefore qualified to be a holder. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in _ Sri.S.M.Ramesh Vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.2778/2013 while considering whether a purchaser of an agricultural land has to be impleaded in an enquiry under Section 48-A of the KLR Act held that an order passed by the Tribunal permitting such purchaser to participate in the enquiry cannot be termed as an error of jurisdiction.
26. The petitioner has claimed to have purchased the lands in question from the holder of the village office and therefore, has an interest in the village office and by virtue of Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC, he has stepped into 41 the shoes of the holder and is therefore entitled to contest the impugned order passed by the land Tribunal. This Court therefore holds that the petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal.
27. In so far as the contention that Byanna was a member of the family of Muniyappa and therefore he could not have filed an application independently is raised only to be rejected, as there is no evidence that both Byanna and Muniyappa were members of a family when the first application was filed.
28. As regards the contention that the applicants were not in possession of the property in question and therefore, under Section 7 of the KLR Act, they were entitled to recover possession, which they failed, it is to be noticed that this Court in RSA.No.692/2000 to 695/2000 had held that the Tribunal would independently hold an enquiry uninfluenced by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.56/1995 to 59/1995. Hence, the said contention of the petitioner is rejected.
42
29. As regards the other contention that the second application was filed beyond time, the same does not arise as this Court had categorically held that the application was maintainable in view of the extension of time granted for filing application for occupancy rights under the KVOA Act.
30. Turning to the most formidable contention urged by the petitioner that a second application in form No.7 was not maintainable, it is relevant to note that by the first application, Muniyappa had claimed occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.90, 12 and 13/2 of Mugalur Village measuring 1 acre, 1 acre 20 guntas and 9 guntas, respectively. The present applications are filed by Muniyappa in respect of 22 guntas in Sy.No.90, while Byanna had filed in respect of 6.20 acres in Sy.No.128 of Mugaluru Village under the provisions of the Karnataka Village office Abolition Act, 1961 and not under the provisions of the KLR Act.
43
31. To answer this question, the interplay between the provisions of the Karnataka Village office Abolition Act, 1961 and the KLR Act needs to be understood. Though the KLR Act had an overriding effect over all other laws, it saved the legislations found in Schedule-II which provided for conferment of the right of an occupant or grant of a ryotwari patta in favour of any inferior holder or tenant in respect of any land held by him. By virtue of Section 126 the provisions of the KLR Act was made applicable to tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands including tenants referred to in section 8 of the KVOA Act but subject to the provisions of the said Act. In order to ensure the primacy of the KLR Act the rights and liabilities of tenants under KVOA Act is governed by the provisions of the KLR Act. The words "subject to the provisions of Karnataka Village office Abolition Act, 1961, shall be governed by the provisions of the tenancy law"
appearing in Section 8 ensures that tenants in inam lands shall be governed by the extant tenancy law, which was the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 which was repealed by the 44 KLR Act. The fall out of this that the right of tenants in inam lands, shall subject to the provisions of the KVOA Act be governed by the provisions of the KLR Act. The only perceivable condition prescribed under the KVOA Act is that the tenancy should subsist on the appointed date i.e., on 01.02.1963. Once this is established and if an application is filed, the provisions of the KLR Act kicks in and such tenancy are governed under the provisions of the KLR Act.
32. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the legal representatives of Muniyappa and Byanna to establish that as on 01.02.1963, the tenancy was in existence in respect of 22 guntas in Sy.No.90 and 6 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.128 of Mugulur Village. The question is whether Muniyappa could have filed a second application claiming occupancy rights. A combined reading of Section 8 of the Karnataka Village office Abolition Act, 1961 and Section 48-A, 126 and 141 of the KLR Act makes it clear that a successive application was not maintainable, at least in 45 respect of Sy.No.90 of Mugalur village. A mere extension of time by the state government to file applications claiming occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Office Aboition Act,1961 does not revive a cause of action after 21 years. The reason behind not entertaining a second application is founded under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, Muniyappa did not disclose the reason for not claiming occupancy right in respect of the entire extent in Sy.No.90 namely 1-22 acres, when he filed the application for the first time. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are aptly applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, it is held that the subsequent application claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.90 was not maintainable.
33. In so far as the contention that the claim in respect of Sy.No.128 was entertained without any basis, the land Tribunal had allowed the claim of the Byanna on the following grounds:
46
i. That M.Subbaiah being the Shanbhog was recording entries in the revenue records and therefore, the claims of the applicants that their request to enter their names in the revenue records was turned down by M.Subbaiah was probable.
ii. That neither M.Subbaiah nor his son M.S.Srikantaiah was cultivating the land in question. Though they claimed that they were cultivating the land through tenants, they did not produce any material evidence in that regard.
iii. That M.S.Srikantaiah did not deny that he was not residing at Mogaluru Village but was residing at Bengaluru. Therefore, it is impossible to accept that M.S.Srikantaiah was cultivating the land.
iv. Though the witnesses supported M.S.Srikantaiah in their chief-examination,
however in their cross-examination it was demonstrated that they were set up by Sri.M.S.Srikantaiah.
47
v. That the contention of the applicant that the revenue records were
entered by the Shanbog and patel cannot be disbelieved. That this Court had recorded in various judgments that Shanbog and Patel were not cultivating the land and were entering the revenue records as per their discretion.
vi. That in Sy.No.128, 1 acre of land was already registered in the name of
Muniyappa as per the order dated 03.03.2003 in LRF ATC 2233/1975-76. That in respect of other land bearing Sy.No.30/2 occupancy rights was granted to Muniyappa and Nanjappa that in the aforesaid LRF ATC 2233/1975-76, the Tribunal had conducted inspection and found that the land in Sy.No.128 was not cultivated by the owners but was cultivated by the tenant-Mr.Venkataramanappa S/o Deveerappa and had granted occupancy rights.
vii. That the circumstances disclosed that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicants and the landlord.
48
viii. That this Court in
Chandrashekaraiah Vs. Land Tribunal,
1980 (1) KLC Short Notes 153 had held that though entries in revenue records has presumptive value but if there are other materials placed before the Tribunal which are sufficient to displace such presumption, the Tribunal can give a finding contrary to such entries.
34. The records of the Tribunal were secured. One thing is certain that the revenue records did not disclose the names of the applicants as tenants in occupation of the lands in question. The question that needs to be considered is whether the applicant (Sri Byanna) was a tenant in respect of land in Sy.No.128 as on 01.02.1963. The respondent No.20 was employed with the Central Government in the Accountant General's Department in the year 1958 and was residing at Bengaluru. His father, Sri.M.Subbaiah died in the year 1978 at which point in time, respondent No.20 was in Bengaluru. His mother also was residing with him and died in the year 1983. Though 49 he claimed in his deposition on 23.04.1987 that he had engaged a coolie named Sri Venkataramanappa to cultivate the land in Sy. No.128, when he deposed before the Tribunal on 31.10.2003, he feigned ignorance of the name of the coolie. He admitted that his father was managing the revenue records of Mugalur village before handing it over to the village accountant. He also admitted that the children of Sri Byanna were in occupation of the house belonging to him in khaneshumari Nos.10 and 11. Though he claimed that he was getting the land in Sy. No.128 cultivated through tenants, he could not recollect the name of any tenant including the name of Sri Venkataramanappa. The fact that the other portions of the land in Sy. No.128 were granted to Sri Muniyappa and Sri Venkataramanappa is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that an application was filed by Sri Balappa, son of Kondappa in respect of 02 Acres 28 guntas which was however not pursued. Having regard to the fact that the landlord was not a resident of Bengaluru, but was employed in a Central Government Department, it is 50 difficult to accept his claim that he was personally cultivating the lands in question. The respondent No.20 did not disclose the names of persons who were engaged as coolie to cultivate the land. The evidence recorded by the Tribunal, more particularly, the evidence of Sri Veerappa clinches the issue as he deposed categorically that it was Sri Byanna who was cultivating the land in Sy.No.128. The evidence of the witnesses which was recorded by the Tribunal, more particularly, the deposition of Sri Venkatappa on 24.11.1986 confirms the above findings.
35. The evidence on record does not disclose whether the Tribunal had conducted a spot inspection to ascertain the limits of land in Sy.No.128 claimed by the applicants. The Tribunal has also not verified whether the graves of Sri Muniyappa @ Annayappa and Sri Byanna were situate in Sy.No.90. The Tribunal has not verified the records in LRF ATC 2233/1975-76 concerning 01 acre of land in Sy.No.128 which was granted in favour of Sri Venkataramanappa as well as the proceedings in LRF ATC 51 58/1975-76 by which, 01 acre of land was granted to Sri Muniyappa. The Tribunal has not visited the spot to identify the ridges laid in the property of Sri Muniyappa, Sri Venkataramanappa etc. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the circumstances indicate that Sri Byanna was a tenant cultivating the land in question is probable and cannot be doubted.
36. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is allowed in part. The Order dated 03.02.2004 passed by the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, Anekal, in Case No.L.R.F.ATC.118/1984-85 is modified and the application filed by Sri Muniyappa- predecessor of respondents No.3 to 9 in respect of land measuring 22 guntas in Sy.No.90 of Mugalur village is rejected. However, the Order of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the land measuring 06 Acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.128 of Mugalur village is upheld.
37. This Court could not resist noticing the fact that the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights of the land in Sy.No.128 of Mugalur village on 03.02.2004. Section 8 of 52 the KVOA Act makes it clear that the tenancies under it shall be governed by the provisions of the KLR Act. Section 61 of the KLR Act, prohibited alienation of lands, the occupancy of which were granted to tenants. It is undisputed that the tenants have sold the land in question to the respondent No.25 on 20.05.2013 which is clearly in violation of Section 61 of the KLR Act. Hence, the sale deed dated 20.05.2013 executed in favour of the respondent No.25 concerning 06 Acres 20 guntas in Sy. No.128 of Mugalur village, Sarjapura hobli, Anekal Taluk, and registered as BSG-1-00896-2013-14 at the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, is invalid. By virtue of Section 61(3) of the KLR Act, the land shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and shall be disposed off in accordance with Section 77 of the KLR Act.
Registry is directed to issue appropriate intimation to the Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk, to make appropriate entries concerning the aforesaid land in the name of the State Government. The Registry is directed to issue appropriate 53 intimation to the Senior Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, to score off the sale deed dated 20.05.2013 registered as BSG-1-00896-2013-14 and stored in CD No.BSGD207 dated 21.05.2013.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR - para 1 to 25 NR - paras 26 to 34 sma- from para 35