Dismissed

Smt.Rajalakshmi v. the Chairman

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2022WP/2991/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashment of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal order setting aside Land Tribunal decision denying land grant. Court dismissed petition, citing lack of evidence, non-compliance with statutory forms, and inability of Writ Court to overturn factual findings of statutory experts under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal upheld; revenue entries to be mutated in favor of respondents within sixty days.

Smt.Rajalakshmi Vs the Chairman — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2991 OF 2020(LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.RAJALAKSHMI, W/O R.R.NIGAMANTHA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶8

SMT.MALINI, D/O R.R.NIGAMANTHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶9

SRI.R.R.PATABHI, S/O R R NIGAMANTHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶10

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF RAMANATHAPURA VILLAGE, SUBRAMANYASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 133.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.K MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL,ARKALGUD TALUK, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 102.

¶15

¶16

2. SRI.B.S.RAJU, S/O S V SRINIVASA IYENGAR, SINCE DECEASED REP BY LRS

¶17

2(A) RANGANATHA, S/O LATE B S RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶18

2(B) SRINIVASA, S/O LATE B S RAJU,

¶19

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶20

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1838, 6^TH A MAIN ROAD, D BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 010. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 26.8.2021.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. V SEHSU, HCGP FOR R1;

¶23

SRI.SATHISH K, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A & B))

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.774/2018 VIDE ANNX-P.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER

¶26

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court

¶27

seeking quashment of order dated 13.12.2019 entered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal whereby the case of the

¶28

2^nd respondent in Appeal No.774/2018 having been

¶29

¶30

favoured, the Land Tribunal’s order dated 14.03.2018 granting petitioners claim in Form-7A filed u/s.77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 seeking grant of subject land, has been set at naught.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners draws

¶32

attention of the Court to four entries in the Revenue Records for the year 1970-71 to 1973-74, the subsequent entries being irrelevant, the cut-off date itself being 01.03.1974. These entries came to be made on the basis of Varsa ie., inheritance, and that they enjoy presumptive value u/s.133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. That being the position, his clients are continuing as tenants of the subject land since much before 01.03.1974 and therefore the impugned orders are to be voided, argues the counsel for the petitioner. Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents and the learned private counsel appearing for the private respondents vehemently oppose the petition making submission in justification of the

¶33

¶34

impugned order and the reasons on which it is structured. They contend that stray entries baselessly made cannot enjoy presumptive value. There is absolutely no evidence supportive of the case of petitioners. So contending they seek dismissal of the petition.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the respondents. This court hastens to adds that a Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 cannot upset the findings of fact recorded by a statutory expert body, especially when there is no demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record vide SADHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD , (2003) 3 SCC 524. It cannot be overlooked that the Tribunal is constituted under the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 and it comprises of a District Judge of

¶36

¶37

Selection Grade and a senior I.A.S. Officer of the State Government. The Tribunal after turning the pages of original LCR has recorded a finding that the petitioners had not filed the requisite application in Form-7A at all. Even here also, no material is produced to dislodge the said finding.

¶38

The application in Form-7A is different from the application in Form-7: the former is filed u/s.77A for the grant of land whereas the later is filed u/s.48A for the grant of occupancy in respect of the land, under the 1961 Act. For maintaining either of them, it has to be shown that the land was an agricultural land and the claimant was cultivating the same as on 01.03.1974 and further that such cultivation was in his capacity as the tenant. Section 77A came to be introduced w.e.f. 01.11.1998 for protecting the tenants in occupation of the land, if they had not sought for grant of occupancy u/s.48A. There is absolutely no

¶39

¶40

evidence to establish the foundational facts in terms of the ingredients discussed above.

¶41

The vehement submission of learned counsel for

¶42

the petitioners that the name of his client’s father figured in the Revenue Records for three consecutive years, would not come to his aid since the said entries are shown to be made on the basis of varsa. If it was varsa as contended, then for the preceeding years the name of the predecessor in title even as a tenant ought to have figures in the records, however, it has not. This apart, the stray entries do not enjoy presumptive value u/s.133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Added, column 9 in the ROR specifically mentions name of the contesting respondent as the khabzedar. Therefore, petitioners cannot claim to be in possession of the subject land.

¶43

If the claim of petitioners was u/s.77A for the grant of land, it was the Assistant Commissioner who

¶44

¶45

should have dealt with the matter. However, it was the Land Tribunal which did it, although the Assistant Commissioner happens to be its Chairman. Thus the order itself was absolutely wrong and untenable. The KAT has set it naught, although on the merits of the matter and not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Ordinarily such matters would have been remitted by this Court for consideration afresh at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner. However, such a course is not adopted inasmuch as there is no application in Form-7A at all. Added, there is no legal evidence to substantiate the claim of petitioners that their father was the tenant of the subject land as on 01.03.1974. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in futility.

¶46

In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, cost having been made easy. The Revenue entries shall be mutated in favour of the private respondents on the basis

¶47

¶48

of the impugned order passed by the KAT within sixty days and delay may entail costs on the lapsing official.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Snb/

Smt.Rajalakshmi v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Rajalakshmi v. the Chairman

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

Sri D M Venkatesha Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

N Chandra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekar L Vs Sri. Devaraj D.V.

Sri M N Sathyanarayan Vs the Secretary

Smt Sakamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Sowbhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka