Dismissed

The Special Deputy Commissioner v. Shri K K Sheriff

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2023WP/30035/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition by the State challenged a Land Tribunal order dismissing an excess land claim. Despite initial inordinate delay, the High Court directed a survey of respondents' lands. Based on the survey findings and failure of the State to prove excess holding, the petition was dismissed, prohibiting the State from interfering with the validated holdings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondents permitted to survey and mark lands as per their claim; State prohibited from interfering with such properties.

The Special Deputy Commissioner Vs Shri K K Sheriff — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 30035 OF 2018 (LR-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENFORCEMENT CELL, BENGALURU DISTRICT,

¶7

BENGALURU.

¶8

2. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL. (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURE, AAG A/W SRI. SIDHARTH, AGA)

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

AND:

¶11

1. SRI. K.K. SHERIFF S/O. LATE KHAJA MOHAMAD, KHADER SHERIFF.

¶12

2. SRI. K. KAMALAUDDIN SHERIFF, S/O. K.K. SHERIFF,

¶13

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

3. SMT. RABIYA SHERIFF, W/O. LATE K. NEHALUDDIN SHERIFF,

¶15

4. SRI. K. AFZALUDDIN SHERIFF, S/O. SRI. K.K. SHERIFF,

¶16

5. SRI. FAZALUDDIN SHERIFF, S/O. K.K. SHERIFF,

¶17

6. SRI. K. AKMALUDDIN SHERIFF, S/O. SRI. K.K. SHERIFF,

¶18

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE R/AT: NO 54, KHADER SHERIFF GARDENS, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027]

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶20

7. SRI. K. AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF, S/O. SRI. K.K. SHERIFF SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.

¶21

7(A) MRS. AYISHA AJMAL SHERIFF, W/O. LATE KHAJA AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 169, AA VILLA, 2^ND CROSS, DOMLUR, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶22

7(B) MRS. SAHER ZAIN FAROOK, D/O. LATE KHAJA AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 10/8, Z F VILLA, GROUND FLOOR, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 046.

¶23

7(C) MR. KHAJA SARIM AJMAL SHERIFF, S/O. LATE KHAJA AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 169, AA VILLA, 2^ND CROSS, DOMLUR, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶24

7(D) MR. ANNUR AJMAL SHERIFF KHAJA, S/O. LATE KHAJA AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. 169, AA VILLA, 2^ND CROSS, DOMLUR, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶25

7(E) MS. ALINA ARYA SHERIFF, D/O. LATE KHAJA AJMALUDDIN SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO. 169, AA VILLA, 2^ND CROSS, DOMLUR, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. PRAKASH T.HEBBAR, ADV. FOR R2 TO R5 & R7(A-E); SRI. A.MADHUSUDHANA, ADV. FOR R6)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ORDER DATED 24.10.2011 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ANEKAL, ANEKAL IN NO.LRF.CR(11)179-184/1975-76; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2011 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL,

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶30

ANEKAL, ANEKAL IN NO.LRF.CR(11)179-184/1975-76 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 06.10.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2011 passed in No.LRF.CR(11)179-184/1975-76, by the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, Anekal, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Land Tribunal’), the State has filed this writ petition.

¶34

The writ petition pertains to whether the

¶35

respondents held excess land than the ceiling limit as on 01.03.1974.

¶36

The respondents are holding lands in

¶37

Bilavaradahalli and Kannayakana Agrahara of Anekal Taluk. The Land Tribunal passed order on 22.07.1998, holding that respondents are entitled to hold 378 acres of land, but they are having an excess of 108 acres 30 guntas of land. Passing of the said impugned order resulted in filing of Writ Petition Nos.5386-91/2001

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶40

clubbed with Writ Petition No.40984/2001; Writ Petition No.11854/2006 and Writ Petition No.20543/2007. A combined reading of the orders passed in the aforementioned writ petitions has an effect of recognizing that the respondents are entitled to hold 378 acres of land and if there is any excess, the same has to be surrendered to the Government and the order dated 22.07.1998 passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Pursuant to the same, the impugned order has been passed.

¶41

In the impugned order, it has been held that the combined land holdings of the respondents as on the relevant date was less than 378 acres and accordingly, it was held that the respondents are not required to surrender any land. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the State.

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶43

The case of the petitioners is that, respondents

¶44

are having an excess of 108 acres 30 guntas of land and the impugned order has been passed erroneously, wherein it has been concluded that the respondents do not have any excess land as on the relevant date. For that reason, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶45

Per contra , respondents submit that the impugned order was passed way back on 24.10.2011 and the writ petition has been filed on 12.07.2018 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. It is further submitted that, even otherwise the impugned order is passed in accordance with law and it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

¶46

The questions that arise for consideration in the instant writ petition are, whether there is an inordinate delay on the part of petitioners in filing the writ petition and the writ petition has to be dismissed for delay and

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶49

laches and if not, then whether there is any error in computing the lands held by the respondents as on the relevant date by the Land Tribunal.

¶50

Though there is inordinate delay in filing of the

¶51

writ petition by the petitioners and the same is not satisfactorily explained, nevertheless, this Court by way of interim orders found it fit to direct the Tahsildar to conduct a survey as to the lands held by respondents as on the relevant date and submit a report. Under the said circumstances, it would be appropriate to examine the case on merits rather than dismissing the same on the ground of delay and laches, however, taking into consideration, situations where third party rights have been created over any portion of the property.

¶52

The Tahsildar after conducting the survey has

¶53

come to the conclusion that, the respondents, as on the relevant date, owned 494 acres 38 guntas of land. The said report has been filed on 10.12.2018. However, the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶56

same is contested to be erroneous both by the petitioners

¶57

and respondents in the course of arguments.

¶58

The respondents have replied to the said survey

¶59

report and have contended the same to be erroneous. It is submitted that, they together owned 377 acres 38 guntas

¶60

of agricultural land, which is less than 378 acres as on the relevant date. The details of the lands held according to

¶61

them are as follows:

¶62

Village	Sy.No.	Land holding of Mr. K.K. Sheriff and individual Holders. A-G
Bilvaradahalli	6	58.30
Bilvaradahalli	7	146.30
Bilvaradahalli	31	170.14
Kannayakanna Agrahara	16	38.00
Kannayakanna Agrahara	27/1	2.14
Total:		416.08
Less: Extent of land already converted	A-G 20.10	(-)
Less: Extent held by married daughter Jabeen Sultana	12.00	(-)

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶65

Less: Extent held by Mr. Mukaram Ahmed M (S/o. Mrs. Jabeen Sultana)	6.00	(-) 38.10
Total extent held by all the declarants and land holders		377.38

¶66

In the impugned order, regarding the above, it has been held as under:

¶67

“ The Tahsildar. Anekal Taluk, Anekal has submitted a report along with reports that submitted by the Surveyor and the Village Accountant which clearly reflect that on an enquiry of survey that has been conducted by them in respect of the holdings of the Respondents in the aforesaid Survey Number and according to which in S.No. 16 of Kannayakana Agrahara village, there is only an extent of 38A.00 in physical possession and enjoyment of the Respondents.

¶68

It would be relevant to mention that the Respondents have accepted the said report without any agitation and contention and in view of the same, the contention of the Respondents that they hold only 38.00 Acres of land in S.no.16 of Kannayakana Agrahara village is an acceptable and valid one Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the earlier findings

¶69

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶70

of this Tribunal that the Respondents are holding 133 Acres 14 Guntas of land in Sy No.16 of Kannayakana Agrahara village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk does not stand to reason, it is untenable muchless it is not based on true facts and actualities.

¶71

Consequent on the above finding of this Tribunal, it could be held that the Respondents are having the actual holdings as under:

¶72

Village	Survey Nos. Land holdings of Shri K.K. Sheriff and his family
	A. G.
Bilavaradahalli	06 58 30
Bilavaradahalli	07 146 30
Bilavaradahalli	31 170 14
Kannayakana	16 38 00
Agrahara
Kannayakana	27/1 2 14
Agrahara Total:	416 08

¶73

From the above narration, it is clear that 20.00 Acres of converted land and 18A.00 of land held by the daughter's family of K.K. Sheriff separately have to be deducted and that therefore, the total holdings of the Respondents arrive at only 377A.38gs., (416A.08gs. - 20A.1w0gs. = 395A.18gs. – 18A.00gs., = 377A.38gs.).

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶76

Thus, as per the earlier findings of the Tribunal and also under current findings of this Tribunal, the Respondents are eligible to hold 378 Acres and that therefore the respondents holdings are well within the ceiling limit prescribed under section 63 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶77

In furtherance, as already brought out above, the Respondents have no objection for taking possession of 95A.00 in S.No. 16 of Kannayakana Agrahara village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk.

¶78

The Land Tribunal has therefore came to the conclusion that since the Respondents do not hold any excess extent of land, the action on the part of the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal in mutating 108 Acres and 30 Guntas of land in Sy.No.31 of Bilvaradahalli village in the name of the "Government is without any basis and it is liable to be annulled. Accordingly, it is annulled The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk is therefore directed to restore the names of the Respondents viz., Shri K.K. Sheriff and his family members in the * revenue records such as Pahanis/RTCs etc., in respect of the said extent of 108 Acres 30 Guntas in Sy.No.31 of Bilvaradahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekall Taluk.”

¶79

Thereafter, on 22.08.2023, the State has filed an affidavit along with certain documents and has contended that the respondents hold land to an extent of

¶80

*Corrected vide Court order dated 19.02.2024

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶83

431 acres 11 guntas in Billavaradahalli and 115 acres 10 guntas of land in Kannanayakana Agrahara, totaling 546 acres 21 guntas of lands. Further, for the first time in the said affidavit, the State contends that the respondents are totally entitled to hold only 75 acres 24 guntas and the rest needs to be forfeited.

¶84

As already stated above, the Land Tribunal for the first time in its order dated 22.07.1998 came to the conclusion that respondents are entitled to hold 378 acres and nothing over and above that should be considered as excess land and forfeited. The State till filing of the affidavit on 22.08.2023, had no objection for the same. It did not contest the fact of respondents being entitled to own 378 acres of land in any of the writ petitions filed pursuant to the first order of the Land Tribunal and even when the instant writ petition was filed, nowhere it is mentioned that the respondents are not entitled to hold 378 acres of land. Under the said circumstances, the

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶87

question of reopening the fact that the respondents are entitled to own 378 acres of land does not arise.

¶88

Further, the impugned order is dated

¶89

24.10.2011. The writ petition is filed in the year 2018. There is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition which has not been satisfactorily explained. Further, as per the submissions of respondents as detailed in paragraph No.10 ( supra ) respondents own only 377 acres 38 guntas of land which is well within the ceiling limit. Further, there is a possibility of third party rights being created due to the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, which cannot be addressed in this writ petition.

¶90

In order to verify the exact lands held by respondents , this Court directed the Tahsildar to conduct survey and file a report, which according to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, is erroneous. In spite of giving opportunities to the petitioners, they have failed to point out how the respondents are having excess land. The Tribunal has

¶91

13 -

¶92

NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶93

examined the records and has come to the conclusion that the land held by respondents is within the ceiling limits. The petitioners have merely produced certain RTC’s and have contended that the conclusion of the Tribunal is wrong. Further, respondents themselves have stated that if it is found that they own more lands in Kannayakana Agrahara, than what is shown in paragraph No.10 ( supra ), petitioners can proceed against the same.

¶94

Hence, under the circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to permit the respondents to get their lands as mentioned in paragraph No.10 ( supra ) surveyed and marked and if they were in possession of any other lands other than mentioned in paragraph No.10 ( supra ) as on the relevant date, the State can always initiate appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law, subject to third party rights that might have been created due to inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition. However, the State is prohibited from interfering with the

¶95

14 -

¶96

NC: 2023:KHC:45763 WP No. 30035 of 2018

¶97

properties of the respondents mentioned in paragraph No.10 ( supra ).

¶98

As the State failed to show how the impugned order is erroneous, the writ petition is hereby, dismissed subject to the observations made in paragraph No.15 ( supra ).

¶99

Sd/JUDGE

¶100

¶101

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

The Special Deputy Commissioner v. Shri K K Sheriff

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Deputy Commissioner v. Shri K K Sheriff

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

Lakshmamma Vs Rangaswamy

Smt.Gangavva W/O Fakkirappa Kakkeri Vs Huchappa @ Ningappa S/O Somappa Kakkeri

Mr. Mohd Yusuf Mohammadali Badami Vs the Authorised Officer

King Recreation and Sports Association (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa S/O. Veerbadharappa Gadagin Vs the State of Karnataka

The Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakari Sangha Vs the State of Karnataka