High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for occupancy rights on Devadaya Inam land. The court held that Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is inapplicable to such lands and quashed the petitioners suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.28312 OF 2018 (LR)
BETWEEN :
2
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN CODE – 577 217.
3
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN CODE – 577 217.
8. SMT.KAMALAMMA
D/O LATE S.BASAVANYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT JOGA VILLAGE BELAGUTTI HOBLI HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN CODE – 577 217.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
4
(BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.12.2006 PASSED BY R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE – ‘F’ IN APPEAL NO.365 OF 2007, ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Heard Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.A.C.Balaraj, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents who is on advance notice. Perused the records.
5
2. Land bearing Sy.No.6, measuring 1 acre 24
guntas, situated at Joga Village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District is Devadaya Inam land attached to 4th Respondent - Sri Raghavendra Mutt. It is an undisputed fact that petitioner did not file an application seeking conferment of occupancy rights under Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inam Abolition Act, 1955. However, Form No.7A came to be filed on introduction of Section 77-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as KLR Act, 1961). Said application having been adjudicated came to be dismissed by the competent authority by order dated 08.12.2006 which was assailed by the petitioner herein by filing an appeal before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.365 of 2007 which came to be dismissed by order dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure – ‘F’). Hence, this writ petition.
6
learned counsel appearing for petitioner that authorities below have committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that petitioner and his family possessed or owned 10.25 acres of land and as such, ceiling limit fixed for grant of land under Section 77-A of KLR Act, 1961 would bar the petitioner from claiming grant of land in question. It is contended no enquiry was held in this regard or finding recorded as to the actual extent of land owned and being in possession of petitioner and when such an exercise having not been undertaken, orders of the authorities are liable to be set aside and matter requires to be remanded back to the competent authority for adjudication afresh. Hence, he prays for petition being allowed and matter being remanded to competent authority for adjudication afresh.
7
for parties and on perusal of records, it would clearly disclose that in Form No.7A which came to be filed by petitioner, he has clearly declared that he owns 10.25 acres of land other than the land which he has sought for grant under Section 77-A of KLR Act, 1961. It is because of this precise reason, authorities below have held that even accepting that the land is divided between the petitioner and his brother, the petitioner would be allotted an extent of 5 acres of land and ceiling limit for grant of land under Section 77-A of KLR Act, 1961 is 4.38 acres or 2 hectares of ‘D’ Class land and as such, it came to be held by the Tribunal that competent authority has
8
rightly rejected the application of petitioner. There is no infirmity committed either by the competent authority or by the appellate authority which would call for any interference.
9
W.A.No.3628 of 2009 (KLR) dated 28.06.2013 which has
been followed by yet another Division Bench it came to be held that Section 126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 cannot be misinterpreted contending that Form No.7A can also be filed for Inam land. It has been further held that Section – 77A of the Land Reforms Act cannot be pressed into service to claim right in respect of Inam lands, which is covered under the provisions of certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. It is for these reasons, the application filed by the petitioner in Form No.7A has been held as not maintainable since the subject land was a Devadaya Inam land. There is no error, infirmity or illegality committed by the authorities calling for interference by this Court. No grounds. Writ Petition stands rejected.
SD/JUDGE
DH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applies to Devadaya Inam land.
Whether the competent authority committed error in dismissing the application for occupancy rights due to ceiling limits.
Whether the application filed under Form No.7A was maintainable for Inam land.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.No.3628 of 2009 (KLR) dated 28.06.2013Followed¶53
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Haleshappa and others
State of Karnataka and others
Aravind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
