Allowed

Shri H T Krishnappa v. Shri B Nagarajaiah

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2022WP/11971/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Land Tribunal's order rejecting a tenant's Form No.7 filed twenty-three years after occupancy rights were granted. The court held the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to revisit a final order on merits but affirmed its power to correct a clerical mistake in the survey number.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.04.2002 rejecting Form No.7 was quashed; the order dated 20.07.1984 confirming survey number 35/1 was affirmed.

Shri H T Krishnappa Vs Shri B Nagarajaiah — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.11971 OF 2014 (LR-Sec.48A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SHRI H.T.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT: UDDICHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.S.SRIVATSA, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SHRI B.NAGARAJAIAH S/O LATE BYLANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, R/AT: YELADHALLI VILLAGE, KANNAMANGALA POST, MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶13

2 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE GANGANNA @ GANGAIAH, MAJOR,

¶14

3 . SHRI G.NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE GANGANNA @ GANGAIAH,

¶15

¶16

MAJOR,

¶17

4 . SHRI G. MARIYAPPA S/O LATE GANGANNA @ GANGAIAH, MAJOR,

¶18

5 . SHRI G. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE GANGANNA @ GANGAIAH, MAJOR,

¶19

6 . SHRI G. MURTHY S/O LATE GANGANNA @ GANGAIAH, MAJOR,

¶20

7 . SMT. CHIKKA GANGAMMA D/O LATE GANGANNA @ GANGAIAH, MAJOR,

¶21

Sl. Nos.2 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT MANDIGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶22

8 . THE LAND TRIBUNAL DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, PODIUM BLOCK, BANGALORE- 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶23

9 SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶24

10 KUMARI SHILPA D/O. LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

¶25

¶26

11 SANTHOSH S/O.LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS

¶27

Sl. Nos.10 AND 11 BEING MINORS ARE REPTD. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN Sl.No.9 AND

¶28

Sl.Nos.9 TO 11 ARE R/AT MANDIGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶29

... RESPONDENTS

¶30

(By SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.H.R.RAGHU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5 & R7; SRI.D.S.SHIVANANDA, AGA, FOR R8; SRI.CHAKRAVARTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R9 TO R11; R6 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2016; R10 & R11 ARE MINORS-REPTD. BY R9)

¶31

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.04.2002, PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.8 — LAND TRIBUNAL IN CASE NO.LRF/1403/76-77 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING 3 ACRES 30 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.35 (CORRECT SY.NO.35/1) SITUATE AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE “A” AND BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 21.05.1979 AND THE AMENDMENT ORDER DATED 20.07.1984 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.8 — LAND TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURES “C” AND “E” RESPECTIVELY.

¶32

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.06.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The facts of the case, as could be ascertained from the records, are as follows:

¶36

(a) On 03.12.1956, Hanumaiah executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Ganganna (Gangaiah/Gangappa) in respect of 05 acres of land in Jodi Thimmasandra village (Annexure ‘R1’). The sale deed did not describe the land conveyed by means of a survey number.

¶37

(b) On 03.11.1976, Ganganna (who was one of the purchasers under the above-mentioned sale deed) sought for registration as an occupant of the land by filing Form No.7, against Ramahanumaiah, Narayanappa, Lankappa and Venkataramaiah, who were all sons of Hanumaiah (Annexure ‘B’).

¶38

(c) During the pendency of this Form No. 7, the children of Hanumaiah executed a registered deed of rectification dated 10.08.1977 in favour of Ganganna

¶39

¶40

and another (Annexure ‘R3’). By the said rectification deed, Sy.No.35/1 was incorporated in the sale deed dated 03.12.1956 (registered on 16.01.1957). In other words, nearly twenty-one years after the execution of the sale deed, on the basis of the rectification deed, the sale deed was made relatable to the land bearing Sy.No.35/1. The consequence of this rectification deed, if accepted, would be that Ganganna, who had filed Form No.7, had actually purchased Sy.No.35/1 and had become the owner of Sy.No.35/1, though he had filed a Form No.7 claiming to be a tenant under Hanumaiah— his vendor.

¶41

(d) On 04.09.1978, Ganganna, notwithstanding the fact that he was claiming to be registered as the occupant, sold the land bearing Sy.No.35/1 measuring 3 acres 37 guntas (inclusive of Kharab) to one B.Nagarajaiah (B.Nagarajappa) (Annexure ‘D’).

¶42

(e) As the matter stood thus, the Form No.7 filed

¶43

by Ganganna was taken up for consideration by the Land

¶44

¶45

Tribunal and the Land Tribunal by an order dated 21.05.1979 conferred occupancy rights in favour of Ganganna in respect of Sy.No.35 measuring 3 acres 30 guntas (Annexure ‘C’).

¶46

(f) It may be pertinent to state here that before

¶47

the Land Tribunal, Ganganna claimed that he had already purchased this tenanted land measuring 03 acres 30 guntas after 01.03.1974. Obviously, the sale deed that he was referring to was the deed of sale dated 03.12.1956 and the deed of rectification that had been obtained by him from his vendor’s children i.e., Hanumaiah’s children on 10.08.1977.

¶48

(g) In the year 1982, B.Nagarajaiah—the purchaser from Ganganna filed a suit in O.S. No.120 of 1982 for declaration and injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.35/1.

¶49

(h) As stated above, the order of the Land Tribunal was in respect of Sy.No.35, whereas the suit

¶50

¶51

that had been filed by Nagarajaiah against Ganganna was in respect of Sy.No.35/1.

¶52

(i) On 02.02.1985, by way of consent, a decree of injunction was granted (Annexure ‘G’). Thus, Nagarajaiah, who claimed to have purchased Sy.No.35/1, was protected by an order of injunction which had been granted to him by consent.

¶53

(j) Two years after filing of the suit i.e., in the year 1984, an application was filed before the Land Tribunal for rectification of its earlier order dated 21.05.1979. The rectification that was sought for was in respect of survey number mentioned in the order dated 21.05.1979.

¶54

(k) On the basis of a statement of Ganganna and after perusing the documents, such as RTCs, the Land Tribunal took the view that in its earlier order, the mentioning of Sy.No.35 was incorrect and in its place, Sy.No.35/1 was to be inserted. This order was passed

¶55

¶56

on 20.07.1984, i.e., five years after the earlier order of the Land Tribunal (Annexure ‘E’).

¶57

(l) In the year 1984, Nagarajaiah—the purchaser

¶58

from Ganganna, filed Writ Petition No.17402 of 1984 challenging the original order of the Land Tribunal dated 21.05.1979 and also the order dated 20.07.1984 by which the survey number was corrected from Sy.No.35 to Sy.No.35/1. However, by an order dated 16.07.1985, this Court dismissed the writ petition of Nagarajaiah on the ground of delay and laches (Annexure ‘H’).

¶59

(m) As against this order of dismissal, a writ appeal was preferred in W.A. No.453 of 1986. When this writ appeal was taken up for consideration on 29.05.1990 (Annexure ‘J’), on behalf of Nagarajaiah, a submission was made that though a challenge was made to the order dated 21.05.1979 and 20.07.1984 in the

¶60

writ petition, the prayer was being confined only to the order dated 20.07.1984 by which the survey number was changed from Sy.No.35 to Sy.No.35/1 and that

¶61

¶62

Nagarajaiah would not press the challenge to the order conferring occupancy rights in favour of Ganganna on 21.05.1979.

¶63

(n) The Hon’ble Division Bench, thereafter, took

¶64

the view that the Land Tribunal was required to re-hear Nagarajaiah as well as Ganganna and then pass orders on merits in relation to the amendment. The Hon’ble Division Bench made it clear that the order conferring occupancy rights in favour of Ganganna on 21.05.1979 was not being interfered with. Thus, the fact that the

¶65

land stood vested in the State and the order conferring occupancy rights in favour of Ganganna in respect of Sy.No.35 became final.

¶66

(o) Nagarajaiah thereafter preferred Writ Petition

¶67

No.19157 of 1999 contending that despite the order of the Division Bench in W.A. No.453 of 1986, the Land Tribunal had not taken up the application for consideration. By an order dated 14.06.1999, this Court disposed off the said writ petition and directed the Land

¶68

¶69

Tribunal to consider the application for amendment of its order (Annexure ‘K’).

¶70

(p) As the matter stood thus, it appears that

¶71

Ganganna executed an agreement of sale on 30.12.1999 in favour of H.T.Krishnappa (the petitioner herein) agreeing to convey the land bearing Sy.No.35/1 (Annexure ‘L’).

¶72

(q) Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench and also the directions issued in W.P. No.19157 of 1999, the Land Tribunal took up the matter for consideration of the application which had been filed by Ganganna for modification.

¶73

(r) Though the proceedings ought to have been

¶74

confined only to the application for an amendment as directed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.453/1986, in these proceedings, Ganganna filed a memo on 18.04.2002 stating that he was not cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.35/1 measuring 5 acres and by mistake

¶75

¶76

his name had been entered in the revenue records. He stated that he had filed Form No.7 under a mistaken impression and he, therefore, requested the Land Tribunal to reject his Form No.7. On the basis of this memo, the Land Tribunal proceeded to reject his Form No.7 vide its order dated 18.04.2002 (Annexure ‘A’).

¶77

(s) It is this order dated 18.04.2002, by which the Land Tribunal had rejected Form No.7 filed by Ganganna, is being challenged by H.T. Krishnappa (the purchaser of the land from Ganganna), in this writ petition.

¶78

(t) It may also be pertinent to state here that, H.T. Krishnappa had instituted a suit for specific performance in O.S. No.13 of 2006 seeking to enforce the agreement of sale dated 30.12.1999 executed by Ganganna in respect of Sy.No.35/1. This suit, ultimately, ended in a compromise decree dated 23.07.2011 and H.T. Krishnappa was granted a decree of specific performance (Annexure ‘M’).

¶79

¶80

Sri. S. Srivatsa, learned senior counsel appearing

¶81

for Sri.Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Land Tribunal had absolutely no jurisdiction to reject Form No.7 and that too twenty-three years after it had passed an order of registering the applicant/tenant as the occupant. He submitted that on the order being passed to register the tenant as the occupant, the Land Tribunal became functus officio and did not retain any power at all to pass any order on the merits of the claim.

¶82

2.1 He submitted that the only matter that could

¶83

have been taken up by the Land Tribunal was the application that had been filed by Ganganna for rectification of the survey number. He submitted that, in order to ensure that the sale in favour of Nagarajaiah, which was per se void, was saved, the Land Tribunal had passed an order permitting Ganganna to withdraw Form No.7. He submitted that this was basically done to enable Ganganna to claim that he was the owner as per

¶84

¶85

the sale deed dated 03.12.1956 and as rectified by the rectification deed dated 10.08.1977 and as a consequence, ensure that the sale made by him in favour of Nagarajaiah was rendered valid. He therefore, submitted that the order of the Land Tribunal was an illegal order.

¶86

2.2 He also submitted that on the Land Tribunal registering Ganganna as an occupant, Ganganna became the owner and was entitled to deal with the property in any manner he thought fit after the period of nonalienation had expired. He submitted that since the Land Tribunal had modified and rectified its order as Sy.No.35/1 instead of Sy.No.35, in essence, the order of the Land Tribunal was in respect of Sy.No.35/1 with effect from 21.05.1979 itself and thus, Ganganna possessed the right to convey the property on the expiry of 15 years from the date and he had after the expiry of the period of non-alienation, conveyed the property to

¶87

¶88

the petitioner on 30.12.1999 and the petitioner was entitled to own and possess the land.

¶89

2.3 He submitted that in order to get over this

¶90

conveyance, a diabolical scheme had been hatched by Nagarajaiah (the purchaser from Ganganna) in a clear case of apparent collusion with Ganganna. He, therefore, requested that the impugned order dated 18.04.2002 be quashed and consequentially, the orders of the Land Tribunal dated 21.05.1979 and 20.07.1984 were required to be confirmed.

¶91

Sri.M.Shivaprakash, learned counsel for respondent No.1—Nagarajaiah/the purchaser, on the other hand, contended that Ganganna was not at all entitled to file Form No.7, since he had purchased the property in the year 1957 and he had also sold it to Nagarajaiah— respondent No.1 on 04.09.1978 and Ganganna had, therefore, rightly sought for withdrawal of his Form No.7 and the Land Tribunal was justified in rejecting his Form

¶92

No.7.

¶93

¶94

3.1 He submitted that even though an order had

¶95

been passed by the Land Tribunal registering Ganganna as the occupant, it was, nevertheless, permissible for

¶96

Ganganna to withdraw his claim and it was also open to the Land Tribunal to accept the withdrawal and reject the application.

¶97

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the principal question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is:

¶98

“ Whether it is permissible for the Land Tribunal to reject a Form No.7 filed by the tenant, on his request nearly twenty-three years after the Land Tribunal had passed an order registering the tenant as an occupant?”

¶99

Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) deals with the enquiry that is to

¶100

be conducted by the Land Tribunal¹ . The said Section

¶101

1 48A. Enquiry by the Land Tribunal, etc.— (1) Every person entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 45 may make an application to the Land Tribunal in this behalf. Every such application shall, save as provided in this Act, be made before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the commencement of Section 1 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978.

¶102

¶103

states that every person who is entitled to make an application is required to make the application within the prescribed time and on receipt of the application, the

¶104

Land Tribunal is required to publish a public notice in the village in which the land is situated calling upon the landlord and all other persons having an interest in the

¶105

land to appear before it on the date specified in the

¶106

(2) On receipt of the application, the Land Tribunal shall publish or cause to be published a public notice in the village in which the land is situated calling upon the landlord and all other persons having an interest in the land to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. The Land Tribunal shall also issue individual notices to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others as may appear to it to be interested in the land.

¶107

(3) The form of the application, the form of the notices, the manner of publishing or serving the notices and all other matters connected therewith shall be such as may be prescribed. The Land Tribunal may for valid and sufficient reasons permit the tenant to amend the application.

¶108

(4) Where no objection is filed, the Land Tribunal may, after such verification as it considers necessary, by order either grant or reject the application.

¶109

(5) Where an objection is filed disputing the validity of the applicant’s claim or setting up a rival claim, the Land Tribunal shall, after enquiry, determine, by order, the person entitled to be registered as occupant and pass orders accordingly.

¶110

(5A) Where there is no objection in respect of any part of the claim, the Land Tribunal may at once pass orders granting the application as regards that part and proceed separately in respect of the other part objected to.

¶111

(6) The order of the Land Tribunal under this section shall be final and the Land Tribunal shall send a copy of every order passed by it to the Tahsildar and the parties concerned.

¶112

Provided that the Land Tribunal may, on the application of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in writing, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by it.

¶113

Provided further that the Land Tribunal may on its own or on the application of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in writing correct the extent of land in any order passed by it after causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concern-parties.

¶114

(7) The person to be registered as an occupant shall pay to the State Government as premium an amount equal to fifteen times the net annual income referred to in sub-section (2) of section 47 in the case of A Class, B Class and C Class lands referred to in part A of Schedule 1 and twenty times such income in the case of D Class land referred to in the said Part A, plus the amount, if any, payable under sub-section (3) of that section:

¶115

Provided that the premium payable by a permanent tenant shall be six times the difference between the rent and the land revenue of the land.

¶116

(8) Where no application is made within the time allowed under sub-section (1), the right of any person to be registered as an occupant shall have no effect.”

¶117

¶118

notice and the Land Tribunal is also required to issue individual notices to the persons mentioned in the application.

¶119

The said Section further states that, where no objection is filed, the Land Tribunal, after such verification as it considers necessary, by order either grant or reject the application. In the event, an objection is filed disputing the validity of the applicant’s claim, the Land Tribunal shall, after enquiry, is required to determine whether the person is entitled to be registered as an occupant and pass orders accordingly.

¶120

Sub-section (6) of Section 48A of the Act categorically states that the order of the Land Tribunal passed under this Section shall be final and the Land Tribunal should send a copy of every order passed by it to the Tahasildar.

¶121

However, the first proviso to Section 48A(6) of the Act states that the Land Tribunal may, on the application

¶122

¶123

of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in writing, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by it.

¶124

Similarly, the second proviso to Section 48A(6) of the Act states that the Land Tribunal may also on its own or on the application of any of the parties, and for the reasons to be recorded in writing correct the extent of land in any order passed by it after causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

¶125

Thus, the only power that is available with the Land Tribunal under the statute, after an order is passed either granting or rejecting the application, is to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in its order or to correct the extent of land in its final order after causing actual measurement of the properties.

¶126

Section 48A(6) of the Act makes it abundantly clear

¶127

that the order of the Land Tribunal is final and the only

¶128

¶129

small window that is available to the Land Tribunal for correcting its order is in the two situations contemplated under the second proviso to Section 48A(6) of the Act. It is also to be stated that in both the provisos to Section 48A(6), the statute uses the term “ correct ” thereby meaning that the final order can only be corrected and the order as such will have to be maintained. It is therefore clear that the Tribunal on the passing of an order, either rejecting or granting the application, does not retain any power to consider the claim on merits, even if it is by consent of the tenant. Apart from this provision, there is no other provision in the statute which enables the Tribunal to revisit its final order.

¶130

12. There is, however, a provision in the Act by which

¶131

the Land Tribunal can review its order and that is Section 122A of the Act² . However, this power of review is only

¶132

2 122A. Review by the Tribunal.— Where the Tribunal, either suo motu or otherwise, after such enquiry as it considers necessary is satisfied that an order under sub-section (1) of section 67 has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete declaration, it may, within a period of two years from the date of such order or within the 31st day of December, 1995, whichever is later, reopen the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit:

¶133

Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person likely to be affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶134

¶135

in respect of an order passed under Section 67(1) of the Act, which would be an order determining the extent of land holding that a person can possess on his filing a declaration and not in respect of an order granting or rejecting the application of the tenant. This power of review can be exercised only if the order determines the entitlement of a person’s holding and can be reviewed only if the order is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and not on the basis of any error. In fact, even this power of review in respect of orders determine the holding of a person, will have to be exercised by the Tribunal within a period of two years.

¶136

Thus, it is clear that the statute does not permit the Tribunal to entertain an application to review an order which has been passed on merits.

¶137

In view of Section 48A(6) of the Act and its two provisos, which declare that the order of the Land Tribunal is final and can be corrected only under two

¶138

¶139

circumstances, it is obvious that the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction at all to recall an order passed on merits granting an application filed by the tenant and reverse it by rejecting the Form No.7 filed by the tenant and that too, twenty-three years after it had been granted.

¶140

It has to be stated here that the only issue that was before the Land Tribunal, in the instant case, was whether the order dated 21.05.1979 was required to be modified insofar as it related to the correction of the survey number.

¶141

The Hon’ble Division Bench while disposing off the writ appeal in W.A. No.453 of 1986 filed by B.Nagarajaiah—the purchaser from Ganganna, categorically stated as follows:

¶142

“The learned Counsel for the appellant confines his prayer to the quashing of Annexure-H, namely, order dated 20.7.1984 in so far as it relates to Survey No.35/1. He does not press the relief in relation to order dated 21.5.1979. Having regard to the

¶143

¶144

factual position, since Annexure-H is sought to be quashed on the ground that the appellant was not heard before the change of revenue registry, which is also admitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent, we hereby direct that the Land Tribunal shall re-hear both the appellant as well as the third respondent and pass orders on merits in relation to amendment. We make it clear that the order under Annexure ‘E’ dated 21.5.1979 is not interfered with. Writ Appeal ordered accordingly.”

¶145

Thus, the Hon’ble Division Bench had made it

¶146

explicit that the order registering Ganganna as a tenant had become final and should not be interfered with. Despite the confirmation of the order dated 21.05.1979, the Land Tribunal by permitting Ganganna to withdraw his Form No.7 has basically violated the specific direction issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

¶147

It is, therefore, clear that the Land Tribunal did not possess any jurisdiction to permit Ganganna to withdraw his Form No.7 and the question framed above is

¶148

¶149

answered in the negative. The impugned order, therefore cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed .

¶150

The next question that has to be considered is:

¶151

“ Whether the Land Tribunal was justified in correcting the survey number as 35/1 by its order dated 20.07.1984 ? “

¶152

In my view, the Land Tribunal was justified in rectifying the survey number mentioned in the order dated 20.07.1984 from survey number 35 to 35/1 for more than one reason.

¶153

Firstly, in Form No.7 filed by Ganganna, the land claimed by Ganganna was Sy.No.35/1 of Thimmasandra village (as evidenced by the photocopy of the Form No. 7 that has been produced in this petition as Annexure “B”) This claim was made against Ramahanumaiah, Narayanappa, Lankappa and Venkataramaiah, who were

¶154

¶155

all sons of Hanumaiah. Ganganna, while seeking for amendment of Sy.No.35/1 before the Land Tribunal, had specifically pleaded that he was in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.35/1 and the Land Tribunal after perusing the statements and the RTCs also found that Ganganna was in possession of Sy.No.35/1 and consequently, the Land Tribunal had directed its order to be modified and the survey number be replaced as Sy.No.35/1 instead of Sy.No.35. Since the application filed by Ganganna was for Sy.No.35/1 itself and even according to the Land Tribunal, the RTCs and the claim by Ganganna was in respect of Sy.No.35/1 itself, the Land Tribunal was justified in modifying its earlier order and substitute Sy.No.35 with Sy.No.35/1.

¶156

It has to be stated here that Ganganna claimed to have purchased 05 acres in Jodi Thimmasandra Village in the year 1956. However, in the said sale deed the survey number was not mentioned. Therefore, in the absence of any particular survey number being

¶157

¶158

mentioned in the sale deed, the sale deed cannot be referable to Sy.No.35/1.

¶159

However, after all the tenanted lands stood vested in the State on 01.03.1974, Ganganna claims that there was a deed of rectification executed in his favour by the children of Hanumaiah, whereby Sy.No.35/1 was incorporated.

¶160

It may not be necessary to examine the transactions relied upon by both the parties to ascertain whether Ganganna was the owner or whether Ganganna was the tenant of the land in question, since as on 01.03.1974, the sale deed of the year 1956 under which Ganganna is stated to have purchased an agricultural land did not specify the Sy.No.35/1 and hence, it would be hazardous to guess whether he had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.35/1.

¶161

No doubt, it appears that Ganganna did obtain a rectification deed in the year 1977 by which the

¶162

¶163

Sy.No.35/1 was incorporated. However, by then, by

¶164

virtue of the fact that Ganganna claimed tenancy and the further fact that the landlord Hanumaiah accepted the claim of tenancy made by Ganganna, resulted in the land bearing Sy.No.35/1 being vested in the State in view of the provisions of the Act coming into force. Moreover, since neither Hanumaiah—the landlord nor his children challenged the order of the Land Tribunal registering Ganganna as the tenant, the fact that said land stood vested in the State, cannot be in doubt at all.

¶165

It may also be pertinent to state here that it is obvious that Nagarajaiah could not have acquired title under the sale deed dated 04.09.1978 executed by Ganganna, because Ganganna was not yet registered as the occupant and he had only made an application seeking for occupancy rights and the same was yet to be considered. In other words, as on the date the sale deed was executed, Ganganna had no title at all and

¶166

¶167

Ganganna acquired title only on 21.05.1979 when the Land Tribunal registered him as an occupant.

¶168

Ganganna had thereafter acquired the right to convey the property and this right also became available only after the expiry of fifteen years from the date of the order of the Land Tribunal. Admittedly, Nagarajaiah claims that he purchased the land even before it was granted to Ganganna and it is definitely not his case that he had purchased the property after the expiry of fifteen years from the date of the order of the Land Tribunal.

¶169

The decree obtained by Nagarajaiah in O.S. No.120 of 1982, by consent, would also be of no consequence, since the consent was only granted for a decree of injunction and there was no concession regarding conveyance of title in favour of Nagarajaiah.

¶170

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the order of the Land Tribunal dated 18.04.2002 which is

¶171

¶172

impugned in this writ petition at Annexure “A” cannot be sustained and the same is quashed .

¶173

As a consequence, the order dated 20.07.1984 passed by the Land Tribunal is confirmed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶174

Sd/JUDGE

¶175

RK CT:AN

Shri H T Krishnappa v. Shri B Nagarajaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri H T Krishnappa v. Shri B Nagarajaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Abdul Khan Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M S Shankaranarayana Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Pv Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri T L Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Veena N Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka