Dismissed

Smt T a Jagadamba v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024WA/939/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by an individual seeking to cancel mutation entries in favor of the private constituent lands acquired for industrial use by the Mysore Stoneware factor. The Court upheld the Single Judge's order, finding that the writ petition was a belated attempt to challenge finalized acquisition proceedings after seventy years.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; Single Judge's order upholding mutation entries in favor of respondent No. M/s. Mysore Stoneware upheld.

Smt T a Jagadamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 939 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. T.A. JAGADAMBA W/O SRI E KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A NO.1, ADAKIMRANAHALLI VILLAGE 21^ST KM, TUMKUR ROAD MAKALI POST BANGALORE-562 123

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI M.B. NARGUND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VAKKUND SONATAI GANAPAT RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K.G. ROAD BANGALORE

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB -DIVISION BANGALORE.

¶17

THE SPECIAL TASHILDHAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶20

THE MYSORE STONEWARE PIPES AND POTTERIES LTD. THE COMPANY HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 11^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 080 (REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS MR. RAJEEV H. RAMANAHALLI)

¶21

SRI SRINVIASA REDDY S/O LATE PATEL ANJANAPPA A @ THIPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT VEERASHETTYHALLI VILALGE CHIKKABANAWARA POST YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶22

SRI BABU S/O LATE VAHANABKHAN (VAHABKHAN) RESIDING AT NO.3088, GANIGARA PATE 4^TH WARD, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN DODDABALLAPURA.

¶23

SMT RAJAMMA MAJOR W/O KRISHNAREDDY

¶24

SMT RATHNAMMA MAJOR W/O NARAYANASWAMY

¶25

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA MAJOR W/O NARAYANA REDDY

¶26

SRI D C DEVARAJ MAJOR S/O CHIKKAPPA REDDY

¶27

SMT. V PADMA MAJOR W/O CHIKKANNA REDDY

¶28

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶29

RESPONDENT Nos.7 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKABANAVARA YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶30

SRI NARAYANA SWAMY SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶31

12(a) SMT THIPPAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY

¶32

12(b) ANIL KUMAR MAJOR, S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AND SMT THIPPAMMA

¶33

12(c). SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AND SMT. THIPPAMMA

¶34

12(d) SMT RATHNAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AND SMT THIPPAMMA RESPONDENT No.12(a) TO 12(d) RESIDING AT NO.705 VEERASETTY HALLI CHIKKABANAVARA VILLAGE BANGALORE - 560 090.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VYAS KIRAN UPADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 SMT. NILOUFER AKABAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶37

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.2346/2019 (KLR-RES) DATED 28.05.2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.

¶38

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶43

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.B. Nargund with learned Advocate Mr. Vakkund Ganapat Rao for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Udaya Holla with learned Advocate Mr. Vyas Kiran Upadhya for private respondent No.4.

¶44

Appellant is the original petitioner who has sought to call in question the judgment and order dated 28^th May 2024 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition.

¶45

2.1 In the writ petition, different orders, all dated 14^th December 2018 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner-the Revisional Authority, in Revision Petition Nos.32 of 2015-16, 205 of 2012-13, 206 of 2012-13 and 207 of 2012-13 were challenged. They were the revision petitions filed by the private respondent No.4-M/s. Mysore Stoneware Pipes and Potteries Ltd., seeking to

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶47

challenge the respective orders passed by subordinate revenue authorities, whereby the Khatha in the name of the said M/s. Mysore Stoneware was directed to be cancelled and the Khatha /mutation entry in the name of concerned private respondent was ordered to be entered in respect of the lands in question.

¶48

2.2 Since the revisions were allowed by the Revisional Authority under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by setting aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and directing to continue the revenue record in favour of M/s. Mysore Stoneware, challenging the said orders, the appellant filed writ petition.

¶49

The facts involved in the different revision petitions as above may be noticed in nutshell. Land in Survey No.71/1 admeasuring 3 acres and 25 guntas of Chikkabanawara Village belonged to one Hanumaiah. In the year 2005, one Smt. Rajamma W/o. Krishna Reddy applied before the Tahasildar for transfer of Khatha which application was accepted and the order dated 24^th January 2007 was passed by the Tahasildar . On the basis of the order of the Tahasildar , Sale Deed dated 23^rd March 2007 was executed in

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶51

favour of the appellant. The proceedings of the appeal came to be filed by respondent No.4-M/s.Mysore Stoneware, which culminated into the order in Revision Petition No.206 of 2012, in turn challenged in the writ petition as above.

¶52

3.1 Similarly, land in Survey No.71/2 was involved in Revision Petition No.205 of 2012. The Tahasildar accepted the prayer of private party one Babu S/o. Wahab Khan, mutated his name and Sale Deed dated 10^th January 2007 was thereafter executed in favour of the appellant.

¶53

3.1.1 It was land in Survey No.80/3 which was mutated in the name of one Patel Anjinappa in the year 2001, the Tahasildar accepted Khatha in the name of said private party. Pursuant to which, Sale Deed dated 3^rd April 2007 was executed and the appellant purchased the land. With similar facts, this land was subject matter of Revision Petition No.32 of 2015.

¶54

3.1.2 Revision Petition No.207 of 2012 similarly arose. Tahasildar allowed application of the private party for mutation deleting the name of respondent No.4-M/s. Mysore Stoneware. The Mysore Stoneware filed appeal and thereafter, revision petition as above.

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶56

3.1.3 In other words, four different part and parcels of land as above came to be purchased by the appellant from different parties and sought her name to be in Khatha by seeking deletion of the Khatha /mutation standing in favour of respondent No.4-M/s. Mysore Stoneware. Learned Single Judge examined the merits of the order of the Revisional Authority which allowed the Revisions holding in favour of respondent No.4.

¶57

3.2 Although checkered, an eyeview of background of facts, not only help comprehend the controversy, but would also throw light on the aspects of merits involved. On 22^nd February 1937, the Government of Maharaja of Mysore initiated a proposal for setting up a manufacturing unit to manufacture pipes and potteries required for the sewerage and sanitary system in the whole State of Mysore and in furtherance thereof passed an order granting certain facilities and concession to 4^th respondent including a provision to acquire about 112 acres of land in Soladevanahalli village and Chikkabanavara village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore Taluka for manufacture of pipes and fittings. On 15^th June 1938, the Maharaja of Mysore accorded sanction for acquisition of about 112 acres of land in various survey numbers in Soladevanahalli

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶59

village and Chikkabanavara village, including Survey Nos.71/1, 71/2, 80/1 and 80/3 of Chikkabanavara village.

¶60

3.2.1 On 24^th June 1938, in furtherance of the above, a Notification came to be issued under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring on behalf of 4^th respondent the very lands which were set out in the Notification, measuring in all 118 Acres 21 Guntas. On 24^th June 1938, another Notification was issued for taking over possession of various lands including the subject properties under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, declaring that the aforesaid lands are required on behalf of 4^th respondent. Compensation was awarded to the land owners.

¶61

3.2.2 In the year 1938, respondent No.4 established its factory on the said parcels of lands at Soladevanahalli and Chikkabanavara villages including the subject properties and commenced production of clay pipes, refractory materials and potteries and also started its chemical stoneware production in 1950. The entire 118 Acres 21 Guntas which was handed over to the respondent No.4Company was used for industrial purpose, it was stated.

¶62

3.2.3 On 4^th April 1948, the respondent No.4 for the purpose of availing financial facility, mortgaged the lands acquired on their

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶64

behalf including the schedule properties in favour of Bank of Mysore by executing registered Mortgage Deed.

¶65

3.3 On 24^th November 2009, after lapse of 70 years, one Mr. Ramadas and others filed Writ Petition No.30999 of 2009 challenging the acquisition of lands bearing Survey Nos.79 and 80 of Chikkabanavara village in favour of the 4^th respondent. The said petition came to be dismissed. The judgment referred to an earlier Writ Petition No.5271 of 1995 wherein, this Court dismissed the challenge to the acquisition of Survey Nos.79 and 90 of Chikkabanavara village, which were part of the subject properties and held that various lands totally admeasuring 118 Acres 21 Guntas including the land bearing Survey Nos.79 and 90 of Chikkabanavara village were acquired for and on behalf of respondent No.4. It was found that respondent No.4 continues to be in possession of the same as reflected by the extract of the record of rights, tax paid receipts, etc. It was further held that acquisition cannot be questioned after a lapse of 70 years.

¶66

3.3.1 On 16.01.2009, Smt. Rajamma and five others filed Writ Petition No.32632 of 2002 against the 4^th respondent and others challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting their

¶67

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶68

claim for occupancy rights in respect of various lands including the schedule properties. The said writ petitions also came to be dismissed. Appellant herein impleaded himself as respondent No.8 in the above writ petition. This High Court held that the lands in question have been given to respondent No.4 herein for establishing manufacturing unit of stoneware pipes and carrying on other related activities. The above order was upheld by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.424 of 2009, by the order dated 13^th January 2010.

¶69

Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge. He sought to highlight that the acquisition proceedings were not legal. It was submitted that preliminary and final notifications could not have been issued on the same date. It was further submitted that the acquisition was for private company. Therefore, Part VII of Act No.1/27 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was applicable and that the provisions in that regard were not followed. It was submitted that Section 39 of the Act mandates execution of agreement in favour of the Government by the Company which was not done. It was also submitted that on 18.09.1941, Mysore State has closed

¶70

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶71

the acquisition. Therefore, acquisition of the land in question was dropped and is required to be treated accordingly. According to learned advocate, for various reasons the acquisition was liable to be treated as having lapsed.

¶72

4.1 Learned advocate for respondent No.4 produced for perusal of the Court, copy of the notification dated 09.01.1961 (Mysore Gazette dated 03.08.1961).

¶73

4.2 On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate and learned Senior Advocate for the private respondent supported the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. It was submitted that the acquisition was challenged earlier and the petitions were dismissed. It was also submitted that in the petitions, the challenge was never made to the acquisition but mutation entry was sought to be set aside which existed in favour of respondent No.4-M/s. Mysore Stoneware Pipes and Potteries Limited, in whose favour the lands were acquired and which is in possession of the land, running the factory thereat.

¶74

Upon noticing the facts and aspects, learned Single Judge recorded his findings and observations thus, found in para 8 of the order,

¶75

12 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶77

“8. This Court is not impressed with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner who sought to contend that by order dated 18.09.1941, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mysore cancelled the acquisition proceedings. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that several orders have been passed by this Court negating the contentions of the land owners and -11- subsequently their legal heirs who sought to contend that they acquired title in terms of the orders passed by the Land Tribunal or the competent authority conferring occupancy rights or regranting land in their favour. In one writ petition, a challenge raised to the acquisition proceedings were also considered and rejected. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner.”

¶78

5.1 Learned Single Judge further observed and held, extracted

¶79

from paragraph 9,

¶80

“…Primarily, the Tahsildar blatantly erred in entertaining such an application at the hands of Smt.Rajamma and others. In fact, the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application where claim -12- was made by Smt.Rajamma and others to set aside mutation entry made in favour of the fourth respondent. Such a challenge could be raised only before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act, 1964. This Court is also of the opinion that having regard to the admitted fact that the lands in question are not agricultural in nature, since an industry was established consequent to the acquisition made at the hands of the State of Mysore, such a claim regarding revenue entries made by Smt.Rajamma

¶81

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶82

and others was required to be rejected on that ground alone.”

¶83

5.1.1 The reasons supplied by learned Single Judge to hold as

¶84

above are eminently proper and legal. This Court is in agreement therewith and endorses to what is held as above.

¶85

5.2 The appellant-petitioner indirectly challenged the acquisition proceedings which were finalized in the times of Maharaja of Mysore, in the guise of challenging the mutation entries. The mutation in the revenue records was entered in the name of respondent No.4. It is running a factory since years on the land acquired for it.

¶86

5.3 It was sought to be submitted on behalf of the appellant that the preliminary notification and the final notification were of same date, therefore, the acquisition was bad. The contention remained meritless. In Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Limited Vs. State of Gujarat [(1969) 2 SCR 60 ], it was held that it was lawful for the Government to publish both the notifications on the same date, where the order was passed under Section 17(4) dispensing with the procedure under Section 5(A) of the Act.

¶87

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶88

5.4 Furthermore, earlier three writ petitions, first was Writ Petition No.5271 of 1995, second was Writ Petition No.32632 of 2002 and third Writ Petition No.30999 of 2009 were filed challenging the acquisition of the lands in question. All the petitions failed and the acquisition of the lands attained finality. The petitioner was well aware about those proceedings as he was party in the writ petition.

¶89

5.5 The whole move before the revenue authorities and the challenge raised by the appellant-petitioner was an veiled attempt to call in question the acquisition proceedings after seventy years. The petitioner was aware of the acquisition of the properties in question which was done as back as in the year 1938. Writ Appeal No.424 of 2009 against Writ Petition No.32632 of 2002 was also dismissed.

¶90

5.6 The appellant-petitioner was party. Yet, he proceeded to set up respondent Nos.5 to 12 to file applications before Tahsildar for cancelling the name in the mutation of respondent No.4 and include their names in the revenue record, notwithstanding that the acquisition had attained finality and that the lands were with respondent No.4 in use duly acquired.

¶91

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:40870-DB WA No. 939 of 2024

¶92

5.7 The acquisition was indirectly sought to call in question after seventy years. This ground alone is sufficient to dismiss the case of the petitioner.

¶93

On all scores as highlighted above, the appellant-petitioner has no case whatsoever in merits. The writ petition was rightly dismissed by learned Single Judge upholding the orders of revisional authority passed in the revision petitions.

¶94

The appeal is meritless and the same is dismissed.

¶95

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶96

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶97

KPS

¶98

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Smt T a Jagadamba v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt T a Jagadamba v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

The Taluk Vokkaligara Sangha Vs Sri. Vijay Kumar

M/S Siddhasiri Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

M/S Krishnadevaraya Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chairman

Smt. Jayamma Vs Smt. Sindhuja. L. D.

State of Karnataka Vs Sri. H.S. Gajendra

Karnataka State Open University Vs Smt Kanta D Devangavi