Allowed

Sri. Prakash Reddy v. Sri. Muniraju

Karnataka HC18 Oct 2022WP/11701/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Land Tribunal order granting occupancy rights to private respondents. The Court held that an Agreement to Sell does not create a landed interest and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the constitutional gravity of property rights and evidentiary requirements under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

What did the court decide?

A Writ of Certiorari issues squashing the impugned Land Tribunal order; Revenue Authorities directed to restore entries in favour of the petitioner within 60 days.

Sri. Prakash Reddy Vs Sri. Muniraju — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.11701 OF 2010 (LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.32155 OF 2011(LR)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.11701/2010:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.PRAKASH REDDY, S/O SRI OBALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O BUKKASAGAR VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.J.C.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

¶14

AMENDED V.C.O DATED 24.06.2022

¶15

1(A) SMT. RAJAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶16

1(B) SMT. SHOBHA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶17

1(C) SMT. BHAGYA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶18

1(D) SMT. ROOPA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

¶19

¶20

R1(A) TO R1(E) ARE R/AT KRISHNA DODDI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, BANNERUGHATTA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶21

SRI. NAGARAJ, S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶22

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. MANJUNATH , S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶24

ALL ARE R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶26

THE LAND TRIBUNAL ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL. REP BY ITS SECRETARY- TAHSIDLAR.

¶27

SMT GOWRAMMA

¶28

W/O LATE SRI VENKATESHACHAR, SINCE DEAD BY LRS,

¶29

7(A) SMT. KAMALAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATESHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶30

7(B) SMT. SAROJAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATESHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶31

7(C) SMT. SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATESHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶32

7(D) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATESHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶33

¶34

7(E) SMT. NANJUNDESHWARI, D/O LATE MAHADEVACHAR, GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE VENKATESHACHARI, & SMT. GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶35

7(A) TO 7(E) ARE RESIDING AT M.G.ROAD, HOSUR TOWN, DHARMAPURA DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. PRESENTLY CAMPING AT ANEKAL.

¶36

… RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. J PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO (E) TO R4; SRI. V.SESHU, HCGP FOR R5 & R6; V.C.O DATED 02.08.2011, PETITION DISMISSED AGAINST R7; R7(B),R7(C), R7(D) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V.C.O DATED 13.08.2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE H/S IN R/O R7(A); R7(E) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF R1, TO R4 IN LRF/ATC/2686/1975-76 DT.22.2.10, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANN-D IN SO FAR AS, TO AN EXTENT OF 4.00 ACRES OUT OF 7.00 ACRES OF THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.48, SITUATED AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TQ. BANGALORE RURAL DIST.& WHICH IS MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE GIVEN HEREUNDER.

¶39

IN W.P.NO.32155/2011:

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

SMT GOWRAMMA, W/O G N VENKATESHACHARY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, REP BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI GOVINDA DAS S/O LATE MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT KRISHNA DODDIVILLAGE, GARUDADRI ASHRAM, KALLABALU POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶42

¶43

…PETITIONER

¶44

(BY SRI.B R SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶47

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ANEKAL, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶48

SRI MUNIYAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA, AGED MAJOR,

¶49

SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA, AGED MAJOR,

¶50

SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA, AGED MAJOR,

¶51

SRI MANJUNATHA S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA, AGED MAJOR,

¶52

RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE

¶53

R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶54

SRI NANJUNDA REDDY, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O SRI NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED MAJOR,

¶55

SMT SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED MAJOR,

¶56

AMENDED V.C.O DATED 28.08.2012.

¶57

¶58

SMT PREMEELA, D/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED MAJOR,

¶59

RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 9 ARE R/AT BALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶60

…RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI.V SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. J PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6; SRI.T.M.VENKATAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R7-R9)

¶62

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO. LRF.ATC.2686, 2687, 1470/75-76 DATED 22.02.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE B.,

¶63

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶64

ORDER

¶65

Petitioner in W.P.No.11701/2010 being the buyer of land in question is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Land Tribunal order dated 22.02.2010 whereby occupancy has been accorded in favour of the private respondents as being the LRs of the deceased applicant who had filed Form No.7.

¶66

After service of notice, the private

¶67

respondents 1 to 4 are represented by their advocate. The respondents No. 5 & 6 being the State & the Land

¶68

Tribunal, are represented by the learned HCGP who

¶69

¶70

graciously made available original LCR for examination. Service of notice in respect of 7^th respondent is held sufficient.

¶71

Learned advocate appearing for the private

¶72

respondents and the learned HCGP oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order contending that the Land Tribunal is a statuary expert body and therefore, its finding as to the land being agricultural one and being tenanted as on 01.03.1974, cannot be easily faltered. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

¶73

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶74

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶75

a) For seeking grant of occupancy under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, it has been now well settled that the land should be agricultural one; the person claiming occupancy should be a tenant and such tenancy ought to have been created on or before 01.03.1974; ordinarily, minimum

¶76

¶77

evidentiary material is required to prove the second & third points, the first point being more a matter of Revenue Records.

¶78

b) Keeping the above in view, the examination of original records reveal that there was a Registered Agreement to Sell bearing Document No.1013/1971-72 dated 16.06.1971 wherein one Mr. Nanjunda Reddy i.e., the first respondent in the subject Application in Form No.7 had agreed to buy the land in question. Its validity was mentioned as one year and after the expiry thereof, the amount given in advance would stand forfeited to the vendor who is none other than the husband of 7^th respondent Smt. Gowramma herein. Therefore, the persons claiming under the Agreement to Sell cannot put-forth tenancy at all.

¶79

c) Even otherwise, an Agreement to Sell per se

¶80

does not create any interest in the land in view of the text of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as interpreted by the Apex Court in RAMBARAN VS. RAM MOHIT, AIR 1967 SC 744. This aspect having not been adverted to by the Land Tribunal constitutes first lacuna

¶81

¶82

in the impugned order which has caused enormous prejudice to the land owners, warranting invalidation fo Land Tribunal Order.

¶83

d) The vehement contention of the private respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that their predecessor in title had obtained the land on tenancy basis and therefore, an entry came to be made in the Revenue Records as per Anenxure-R13 to the Statement of Objections cannot be countenanced, and reasons are not far to seek: Firstly, it does not reflect the change of the entry in favour of the predecessor of private respondents as on 01.03.1974; secondly, it was not made a part of original LCR; in what circumstances entries came to be made post 01.03.1974, being irrelevant need not be gone into.

¶84

e) That being the position, the presumptive value which learned counsel for the private respondents wants to rise under section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 does not avail to him. Vesting of private land in State under Section 45 and grant of occupancy under Section 48-A of 1961 Act are serious in nature as the true owner looses the land more

¶85

¶86

particularly when the Property Rights are constitutionally granted under Article 300-A. It hardly needs to be mentioned that when the litigation began, the Right to Property was a Fundamental Right although in the later years, it is relegated to non-Fundamental one. This aspect having not been adverted to by the Land Tribunal, the due seriousness in its approach was lacking in the proceeding and thus, there is an added error on the face of Land Tribunal Order.

¶87

f) The submission of learned counsel for the

¶88

petitioner that the Form No.7 filed by the first respondent No.7 Mr. Nanjunda Reddy has been rejected by the Land Tribunal way back on 17.02.1999 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-B to the writ petition and therefore, Form No.7 of applicants who otherwise claim under the said person is hit by the general doctrine of res judicata , has a lot of force.

¶89

In the above circumstances and no other contention having been urged by both the sides, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues squashing the impugned order. The Revenue Authorities are

¶90

¶91

directed to restore the entries in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 29.05.2006, within 60 days failing which, they may be entailed with heavy costs personally payable for the delay brooked.

¶92

The challenge to very same order of the Land Tribunal in W.P.No.32155/2011 pales into insignificance since the said order has been set at naught as above.

¶93

Now, no costs.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

Bsv

Sri. Prakash Reddy v. Sri. Muniraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prakash Reddy v. Sri. Muniraju

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. Roohi Taj Vs State of Karnataka

Basavegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Rangamma Vs State of Karnataka

Gundu Poojary Vs the Land Tribunal Udupi

Sri.David Raj Samuel Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mohammed Muktar Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka