Allowed

Vittala Shetty v. the Deputy Commissiner

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2022WP/54656/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order cancelling a land grant. The court held that respondents lacking possession and interest at the time of grant had no locus standi and set aside the cancellation order confirming the grant to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal cancelling the grant was set aside and confirmed; orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were affirmed.

Vittala Shetty Vs the Deputy Commissiner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.No.54656/2016(KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VITTALA SHETTY S/O BABU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NINIKAL HOUSE UPPINANGADY POST PUTTUR TALUK DK DISTRICT

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DK DISTRICT MANGALORE

¶13

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR SUB DIVISION PUTTUR TALUK DK DISTRICT

¶14

3 . THE TAHASILDAR BELTHANGADY TALUK DK DISTRICT

¶15

4 . BALAKRISHNA GOWDA S/O DERANNA GODA

¶16

¶17

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS KARAYA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DK DISTRICT

¶18

5 . RAMACHANDRA GOWDA S/O DERANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS KARAYA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DK DISTRICT

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SESHU .V, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN R.P.58/2008 AT ANNEX-A TO W.P. AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner filed an application seeking for regularization of his unauthorized occupation over land bearing Sy.No.106/1A1P2 measuring 62 cents and Sy.No.60/P2 measuring 15 cents. The said application was considered favourably after a report was secured that the petitioner was indeed in unauthorized occupation of the

¶25

¶26

aforesaid lands and accordingly an order of grant was made in his favour on 22.03.2005.

¶27

Thereafter, on 24.05.2005, the petitioner sold the land bearing Sy.No.59/15 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas to the respondents 4 and 5 herein.

¶28

The respondents 4 and 5 herein, thereafter, preferred an appeal challenging the grant made in favour of the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner. It was contended by them that the lands, which had been regularized in favour of the petitioner prior to the purchase, were in fact lands over which they had acquired kumki privileges by virtue of the sale in their favour and the said lands could not have been the subject matter of grant. Reliance was placed on a recital in the Sale Deed, in which, the petitioner had undertaken to withdraw the application that he had filed for regularization, to emphasize the fact that the lands were in fact kumki lands and by virtue of the purchase, respondents 4 and 5 had a right to possess and enjoy the same.

¶29

¶30

The Assistant Commissioner, however, came to the conclusion that the appeal was without any merit. The Assistant Commissioner took note of the fact that by the time the Sale Deed had been executed on 24.05.2005, an order of grant had already been made and therefore, the grant could not be cancelled on that ground. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was also affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in a second appeal.

¶31

The respondents 4 and 5, thereafter, preferred a revision to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal, by the impugned order, has allowed the revision and proceeded to cancel the grant made in favour of the petitioner. The Tribunal has relied upon the recital in the Sale Deed in order to come to the conclusion that the lands in question were kumki lands and the petitioner was not entitled for grant. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the petitioner had executed an affidavit in favour of respondents 4 and 5, in which, he deposed that he is giving up his claim over the lands bearing Sy.No.106/1A1P2 and Sy.No.60/P2.

¶32

¶33

It is against this order of the Tribunal, by which the grant in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, the present petition is filed.

¶34

Admittedly, the land bearing Sy.No.106/1A1P2 measuring 62 cents and Sy.No.60/P2 measuring 15 cents were found to be in unauthorized possession of the petitioner and the revenue authorities on the basis of this unauthorized possession proceeded to grant the land. Admittedly, a month after the said grant was made in favour of the petitioner, a Sale Deed was executed by the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.59/15.

¶35

The contention that since there was an undertaking given in the Sale Deed that the petitioner would withdraw his claim over the lands in respect of which he had made an application, the order of grant could not be sustained, is wholly untenable. As on the date of the Sale Deed, no application was pending adjudication before the authorities and the land had already been granted in favour of the petitioner. If the land had already been granted in favour of the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 cannot be permitted to

¶36

¶37

challenge the grant merely on the basis of an undertaking said to have been given by the petitioner in the Sale Deed or on the basis of an affidavit, in which, he had agreed to give up his claim over the said lands.

¶38

It is to be noticed here that the lands were granted to the petitioner on the basis of his unauthorized possession. The respondents 4 and 5, not being in possession of these lands, cannot have any kind of claim over these lands. In effect, the challenge by respondents 4 and 5 over the grant is fundamentally to enforce the undertaking given by the petitioner in the Sale Deed and also in the affidavit.

¶39

In my view, respondents 4 and 5 fundamentally did not have right to challenge the grant since they had no interest in the land granted to the petitioner as on the date the order of grant was made. The respondents 4 and 5 acquired an interest, even according to them, in the said properties only after they purchased Sy.No.59/15. As stated above, since respondents 4 and 5 did not possess any interest over Sy.No.106/1A1P2 and Sy.No.60/P2 as on the date of grant, they would fundamentally have no locus standi to challenge

¶40

¶41

the said grant. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were, therefore, justified in refusing to entertain the claim of respondents 4 and 5 and they have rightly confirmed the grant. The Tribunal, without noticing this crucial aspect, has proceeded to cancel the grant, which is completely incorrect. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal and confirm the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

¶42

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed .

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

PKS

Vittala Shetty v. the Deputy Commissiner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vittala Shetty v. the Deputy Commissiner

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

Sri Panduranga Swamy Temple Vs the Joint Director of

Sheena Poojary Vs Land Tribunal Kundapur

Sri Papanna @ Muniyappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Anusuyamma S Vs the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

Sri. Appajigowda Vs Assistant Comissioner

Smt B Veena Vs the State of Karnataka