Dismissed

Sri Bylappa @ Thammaiah v. the Head Quarters Assistant to Office

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2022WP/885/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order upholding a Deputy Commissioner's rejection of a land grant application under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, citing lack of official records showing land vesting.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of the impugned order dismissed as there was no infirmity in the Tribunal's observation regarding the statutory requirement of official record of land vesting.

Sri Bylappa @ Thammaiah Vs the Head Quarters Assistant to… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 885 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 885 OF 2019 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI BYLAPPA @ THAMMAIAH (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS)

¶9

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. RANGAMMA WIFE OF LATE BYLAPPA @ THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶11

SRI. BYLAPPA S/O LATE BYLAPPA @ THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶12

SMT. KARIYAMMA D/O LATE BYLAPPA @ THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶13

SRI. BASAVARAJU SON OF ALTE BYLAPPA @ THAMMIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶14

SRI. GULAIAH (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS)

¶15

SMT. HANUMAKKA WIFE OF LATE GULAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶16

¶17

WP No. 885 of 2019

¶18

SRI. BYLAPPA SON OF GULAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶19

SRI. CHITHAIAH SON OF LATE GULAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶20

SMT. SHIVALINGAMMA D/O LATE GULAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶21

SRI. RANGASWAMY SON OF LATE GULAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶22

SRI. SHIVARAJU SON OF LATE GULAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶23

ALL ARE R/AT KAMBA VILLAGE GOLLARAHALLI, KAMBAL POST, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562111.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI.N.BYREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE HEAD QUARTERS ASSISTANT TO OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALRUU RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL, NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALAL 562123.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 885 of 2019

¶30

SMT. PANKAJA WIFE OF LATE RAJANNA @ LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.1/6, ANJENEYA TEMPLE STREET 3^RD CROSS, YEDAYUR, 6^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU 560082.

¶31

SRI. LINGAPPA SON OF LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT KAMBA VILALGE GOLLARAHALLI, KAMBAL POST, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562111.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI SESHU.V, HCGP)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 08.12.2017 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 915 OF 2003 (ANNX-E) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

WP No. 885 of 2019

¶38

ORDER

¶39

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶40

The petitioners who are the legal heirs of Sri Bylappa @ Thammaiah and Sri Gulaiah, who made an application before the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 are before this Court being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.915/2003 setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and consequently rejecting the application filed in Form No.7A.

¶41

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶42

the petitioners that the Deputy Commissioner had rightly held in the order dated 13.05.2003 that the 3^rd respondent herein namely Sri Lingappa, the second son of Sri Late Doddaiah, who was the landlord had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner in the enquiry and he made a categorical statement that the total extent of land held by

¶43

Sri Doddaiah was 3 acres and 20 guntas and after the death of Sri Doddaiah, the land was divided between the

¶44

¶45

WP No. 885 of 2019

¶46

two brothers and further Sri Bylappa @ Thammaiah was a tenant in occupation of 2 acres and 20 guntas, which fell

¶47

to the share of the 3^rd respondent’s brother Sri D.Lakshmanaiah. Having noticed this statement given by the 3^rd respondent herein and on verification of the evidence on record, the Commissioner has rightly come to a conclusion that there could be no manner of doubt that Sri Bylappa @Thammaiah was a tenant in occupation of the land in question for which he had filed an application in Form No.7A in terms of Section 77A of the Act and therefore allowed the application and proceeded to grant 1 acre and 20 guntas in favour of Sri Bylappa @Thammaiah. On the other hand, the Tribunal has not adverted to these aspects and has gone on a tangent while allowing the appeal filed at the hands of the contesting respondent No.2 herein.

¶48

Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting

¶49

respondent No.2 seeks to place reliance on a decision of the Division Bench in the case of Hosabayya Nagappa Naik and Ors. –vs- State of Karnataka and Others reported in

¶50

¶51

WP No. 885 of 2019

¶52

ILR 2002 KAR 1342. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraph No.7 of the judgment and submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench has noticed the scope and purpose and the difference between the provisions contained in Sections 48A and 77A and has explained the difference in the enquiry to be conducted in these two proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench has clearly held that in respect of an application filed under Section 77A it is for the applicant to show that it was an undisputed fact and on record without anything further more that he was a tenant lawfully in possession and cultivation of the land on the appointed date. Learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal has rightly held that the original applicant Sri Bylappa @ Thammaiah has failed to prove by producing any official record to establish the fact that the land is vested with the State Government as on the appointed date and the land in question was a tenanted land. This having been noticed by the Land Tribunal, it has rightly come to a conclusion that the applicant failed to

¶53

¶54

WP No. 885 of 2019

¶55

prove by producing any official records that the land vested in the State Government and the land in question is

¶56

a tenanted land, therefore no infirmity can be found in the impugned order.

¶57

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.2, learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to allow the application filed by Sri Bylappa @ Thammaiah, on the premise that the 3^rd respondent namely Sri Lingappa, who is the brother of Sri Lakshmanaiah made a statement during the

¶58

enquiry that the petitioner was a tenant and in cultivation and occupation of the land in question, which belonged to his brother Sri Lakshmanaiah. Having regard to the position of law as enunciated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench which was cited by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, it is clear that an application under Section 45 is not the same as an application under Section 48A and the enquiry

¶59

¶60

WP No. 885 of 2019

¶61

contemplated under Section 77-A was also held not to be the same as an enquiry by the authority under Section 48-

¶62

A of the Act. It was held that in an application under Section 45, enquiry by the authority is for grant of conferment of occupancy rights, whereas the application under Section 77-A to the Deputy Commissioner is for the purpose of grant of land. The provisions of Section 77A is for the purpose of granting of land on satisfaction of three conditions mentioned in the said provisions. However, it was held that conditions(1) and (2) in Section 77-A are conditions which should have been satisfied and foregone

¶63

in respect of the land. It is not an enquiry to ascertain whether a person can be granted land being a tenant as on the appointed date; such an enquiry was within the scope of Section 48-A and not for the purpose of condition (1) of Section 77-A. An enquiry under Section 77-A is only for a limited purpose to find out the accomplished fact as to whether the person was in actual possession and cultivation of the land on the appointed date. It is not as though the authorities are to hold an enquiry for the

¶64

¶65

WP No. 885 of 2019

¶66

purpose of conferment of occupancy rights on the premise that applicants are lawful tenants on the appointed date

¶67

and the enquiry was for such purpose. The factum of the applicants being a lawful tenant on the appointed date and was in cultivation as on the appointed date is not to be established now in the present enquiry, but is should have been a concluded fact and the scope of the present enquiry is to let in evidence to satisfy or prove the existence of such a concluded fact. It is for the applicant to show that it was an undisputed fact and on record and that without anything furthermore he was a tenant lawfully in possession and cultivation of the land on the appointed date. It was also held that the second condition is also of significance and importance in the context of considering the application i.e., the land should have been vested in the State Government as on the appointed date as it was a tenanted land, and such an event should be reflected in the official record and the factum of vesting of land in the State Government should find place in such a official record.

¶68

10 -

¶69

WP No. 885 of 2019

¶70

It is a clear from the order passed by the

¶71

Deputy Commissioner that no such entry is found in the official record. In fact it has been the contention of the petitioner that the name of Sri Bylappa @ Thammaiah was entered in column No.12(2) in the RTC from the year 1980 onwards. Copies of the RTC’s commencing from 1968-69 have been produced along with the memorandum of writ petition. On going through the RTC’s it is clear that no such entry is made in the land record which would reflect that the land has vested in the State Government by operation of law.

¶72

In the considered opinion of this Court, the

¶73

Tribunal has rightly observed this position of law and on verifying the records the Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion that there being no satisfaction of the requirement of law as declared by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner could not have allowed the application.

¶74