Dismissed

Jayamma v. Executive Officer

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2021WP/42006/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Bench upheld the trial court's order transferring a civil suit to the Special Court under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. The court held that Section 10-A bars civil court jurisdiction over alleged government land grabbing disputes, rendering the earlier precedent of Sriram Properties inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying to quash the order transferring the suit to the Special Court is dismissed.

Jayamma Vs Executive Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.42006/2018(GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

JAYAMMA W/O LATE M RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶10

R.SAMPATH S/O LATE M.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶11

R.RAVEENDRA S/O LATE M RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶12

R.VENKATESH S/O LATE M RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶13

R.SRINIVAS S/O LATE M RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 106 … PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI.A.G.SHIVANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.V.CHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)

W.P.No.42006/2018

AND :

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶20

MUZARAHI DEPARTMENT BANNERGHATTA ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶21

CENTRAL HEAD QUARTERS ASSISTANT DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT 2^ND FLOOR, SRI.MALLE MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE – 560 018 … RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.S.G.HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI.M.SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R2)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON MEMO DATED 20.09.2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.S.NO.184/2013 DATED 04.09.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Aggrieved by the order Annexure-G dated 04.09.2018 transferring O.S.No.184/2013 to the Special Court constituted under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (‘the Act’ for short), the plaintiffs in O.S.No.184/2013 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal have preferred the above petition.

¶27

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶28

¶29

Petitioners filed O.S.No.184/2013 against the respondents for permanent injunction to restrain them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with their possession of the suit schedule property. The subject matter of the suit is the property bearing khanesumari No.25/33 measuring 39ft X 160 ft consisting of 64 ankanas choultry situated in Bannerghatta village of Anekal Taluk.

¶30

The case of the petitioners before the trial Court is as follows:

¶31

Ramakka the mother-in-law of petitioner No.1 purchased the said property under the registered sale deed dated 07.11.1961. Since the date of purchase she was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. She died about 15 years back leaving behind the plaintiffs and another son Narayanappa. First plaintiff was Ramaiah the husband of petitioner No.1. His sisters filed O.S.No.727/2006 against the plaintiffs and others before the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn), Anekal for partition. That ended in

¶32

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶33

¶34

compromise. By virtue of that compromise decree, the plaintiffs have become the owners of the property. The defendants are threatening to demolish the structure on the suit schedule property. Thus they seek permanent injunction.

¶35

The defendants appeared and contested the suit. They claimed that the suit property is part and parcel of Sy.No.2 of Bannerghatta village which in all measured 583 acres. They further claimed that out of Sy.No.2 land measuring 13 acres 38 guntas belong to Champakadhamaswamy temple, a Muzurai institution, therefore, that is a Government land. They alleged that the plaintiffs have concocted some documents and on that basis are claiming the Government property to be their property. Therefore they sought dismissal of the suit.

¶36

During pendency of the suit, second

¶37

defendant filed memo on 20.09.2017 for transfer of the suit to the Special Court constituted under the Act. The petitioners opposed the said memo. The trial Court on

¶38

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶39

¶40

hearing both parties by the impugned order Annexure-G dated 04.09.2018 acting under Section 20 of the said Act ordered to transfer the suit to the Special Court.

¶41

Sri A.G.Shivanna learned senior counsel appearing for Sri V.Chandrappa, advocate on record for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the following grounds:

¶42

i) The trial Court has not recorded the finding that the land is a Government land.

¶43

ii) Till filing of the memo, respondent had not taken any positive action to claim the land as a Government land.

¶44

iii) The trial Court rejecting the contention of the respondent had already granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners as long back as of the year 2013.

¶45

iv) The Act of the trial Court transferring the suit is arbitrary.

¶46

v) There was nothing to show that the suit property forms part of Sy.No.2.

¶47

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶48

¶49

7. In support of his contention he relies on the

¶50

judgment of this Court in Sriram Properties Pvt.Ltd V/s

¶51

State of Karnataka¹ .

¶52

Sri Vivek, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 seek to justify the impugned order on the following grounds:

¶53

i) Before the trial Court, sufficient material was produced to show that the land bearing Sy.No.2 is Government land and part of that was assigned to Champakadhama Swamy temple. Therefore, that was a Government land.

¶54

ii) After this Court rendering the judgment in Sriram properties Pvt.Ltd ’s case, the Act was amended incorporating Section 10-A barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. Therefore, the judgment in Sriram ’s case is of no avail to the petitioners.

¶55

iii) The order of temporary injunction was passed before coming into force of Act, 2014. In that

¶56

1 WP No.47747/2017 (D.D.19.01.2021)

¶57

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶58

¶59

order, it was held that respondents have not produced any records to show that Sy.No.2 is the Government land. But, when the memo was taken up for hearing, the respondents produced sufficient material. The trial Court referring to those documents held that the matter requires to be transferred to the Special Court.

¶60

iv) Whether suit properties form part of Sy.No.2 or not is the question to be decided by the Special Court.

¶61

Having regard to the rival contentions, the question that arises for consideration is “whether the order Annexure – G is Arbitrary?”.

¶62

The temporary injunction order granted earlier, is produced at Annexure-C. That shows that the said order was passed on 01.10.2013. The Act 2021 came into force on 09.10.2014. Therefore, at that stage, the trial Court and the parties had no occasion to refer to or rely on the provisions of the Act, 2011. So also that order was passed on the ground that the

¶63

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶64

¶65

respondents have failed to produce any material to show that Sy.No.2 belongs to Government and out of that, area of 13.38 guntas were reserved for Champakadhama Swamy temple.

¶66

After passing of such order much water has flown under the bridge. The Act of 2011 came into force on 09.10.2014 with an object of curbing the organized attempts of grabbing the lands belonging to the Government, Wakf or Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments etc.,

¶67

Section 2(d) of the said Act which defines ‘land’ says that ‘land’ includes the land belonging to the Government, Wakf or the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments etc. There is no dispute that adjacent to the suit property, Champakadhama Swamy temple situates.

¶68

In the plaint, the plaintiffs have not referred to any sale deed of 1889. However, before this Court it is submitted that Ramakka’s vendor had purchased the said property in year 1889. The copy of the said sale

¶69

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶70

¶71

deed is produced before this Court. In that sale deed there is no reference to the source of the title of the vendor. They have only said that they are in possession of the said property.

¶72

The judgment in Sriram’s case was relied on to press into service the principle that to claim the land as a Government land, the Court should be satisfied that :

¶73

i) There was some positive action on the part of the Government against the grabbers.

¶74

ii) The Court has to record the findings that prima-facie the land is a Government land.

¶75

So far as the contention of the Government in not taking any positive action, as already pointed out the order of the temporary injunction was passed before the Act came into force. When such temporary injunction order was operating against the Government, the question of respondent filing any complaint against the petitioner under the Act does not arise.

¶76

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶77

¶78

So far as the land not being a Government land, the impugned order as well as the records produced before this Court which are said to be the copies of the RTC and mutation entries produced before the trial Court show that Sy.No.2 of Bannerghatta village in all measures 583.38 acres. Out of that, 550 acres was reserved for Forest Department, 30 guntas was reserved for public road and 5 acres was reserved for ‘Ashraya scheme’. During the year 2002-03 it was shown as Gomal land. In column No.11 meant for other rights, the rights of Champakadhama Swamy temple and lake of said temple were shown. The trial Court in unnumbered para No.4 refers to all those documents.

¶79

The other contention was that the suit property carries Khanesumari number, that does not form part of Sy.No.2, therefore, there is dispute with regard to the identity of the property. First of all, Section 10-A of the Act which was introduced by way of amending Act No.30/2020 with effect from 10.04.2020

¶80

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶81

¶82

bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Section 10A of the Act reads as follows:

¶83

“10-A. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts .—

¶84

No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any Government land or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Special court.”

¶85

The aforesaid provision shows that any dispute which includes the dispute whether the property forms part of Sy.No.2 which is Government land or not has to be decided by the Special Court and Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Further Section 9 of the Act provides for procedure and power of the Special Court.

¶86

For the purpose of this case, Section 9(1) to (3) are relevant which read as follows:

¶87

“9. Procedure and powers of the Special

¶88

Courts. —(1) The Special Court may, either suo motu or on application made by any person, officer or authority take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged

¶89

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶90

¶91

act of land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed or offences specified in Chapter XIV-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 whether before or after the commencement of this Act , and pass such orders including orders by way of interim directions as it deems fit.

¶92

(2) The special Court shall for the purpose of taking cognizance of the case, consider the location, or extent or value of the land alleged to have been grabbed or of the substantial nature of the evil involved or in the interest of justice required or any other relevant matter.

¶93

(3) All alleged acts of land grabbing shall be tried only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the land is situated, or where there are more special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Government.”

¶94

Section 9(1) to (3) refers to the alleged act of land grabbing. Therefore the allegation coupled with some material to show that there is ground to believe

¶95

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶96

¶97

that there is a dispute with regard to the land grabbing is sufficient to attract Sections 9, 10A and 20 of the Act.

¶98

The trial Court has recorded its satisfaction with reference to the documents produced by the respondents to show that the land is a Government land. Having regard to that and the fact that respondents were facing interim injunction order which disabled them to file any complaint under the Act, this Court does not find any merit in the contention that those two conditions were not satisfied.

¶99

Apart from that when the judgment in Sriram ’s case was rendered, Section 10A was not introduced. In view of introduction of Section 10A of the Act barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the judgment in Sriram ’s case does not advance the claim of the petitioner.

¶100

Once the dispute arises on the allegation of grabbing of the Government land, by virtue of Section 10A of the Act, the Civil Court loses the jurisdiction.

¶101

W.P.No.42006/2018

¶102

¶103

Therefore there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.

¶104

Sd/JUDGE

¶105

akc

Jayamma v. Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayamma v. Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt N Susheela Vs Smt Geetha v

Kumari Ashitha Vs Ramanna Gowda

Sri. C. Srinivasa Vs Sri. M. Manjunath

Sri. Malleshappa P Vs Sri. Nanjundappa P

Sri K Venkataramanappa Vs H S Nataraj

Sri. N. Ravikumar Vs Sri.S Mohan Kumar