“THERE IS NO INJUSTICE DONE TO THE PETITIONERS. THEY HAVE BEEN REGISTERED AS TENANTS UNDER SECTION 9A OF THE ACT. THEIR POSSESSION CANNOT BE DISTURBED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT. THEY WILL VIRTUALLY BECOME THE OWNERS BY REASON OF THE SAID REGISTRATION. THIS IS SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE PETITION.” SAYS : KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of Sri. B.C. Ravindra vs The Chairman Land Tribunal on 24 November, 2022(WRIT PETITION NO.59736 OF 2014(LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.27440 OF 2015(KLR-RES)) presided by The hon’ble justcie Krishna S.Dixit it is stated that IN W.P.No.59736/2014: These two petitions seek to challenge the same order of the Land Tribunal dated 09.12.2014, a copy of which is at Annexures-A & K. The said order allowed occupancy to the extent of 4 Acres & 03 Guntas in Sy No. 95 of Ananthapura Village, Bengaluru North Taluk in favor of the petitioner in W.P. No. 27440/2015 and as a result his claim to the rest of the land is rejected. The petitioner in W.P. No. 59736/2014 grieving against the grant of encroachment to the extent of 1 acre in favor of one Mr. Munigaiah i.e. the predecessor of the objecting private respondents.
FACTS OF THE CASE
. In B.C.Ravindra’s W.P.No.59736/2014:
(a) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is wrong as his client purchased 1 Acre & 01 Gunta in the subject land from the son of one Mr. Keshavappa vide registered sale deed dated 29.07.2013, the said Mr. Keshavappa purchased the same from one Mr. Kuriyann i.e. petitioner in the companion suit vide registered sale deed dated 22.07.1970. Therefore, his applications for implementation as a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal could not be dismissed as he is a proper and necessary party in the light of RAZIA BEGUM Vs. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM, AIR 1958 SC 886. He also contends that the plaintiff Mr. Munigaiah was never in possession of that particular land as a tenant or otherwise and further that Mr. Kuriyanna was not the owner of the land nor had any interest in the land after the 1970 sale.
(b) Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner argued the fraud and duplicity perpetrated by the original complainant, Mr. Munigaiah, who filed Form 7 without identifying the petitioner as the landlord, and that Mr. Kuriyanna was hand in glove with him; the said Kuriyanna or Munigaiah never disclosed the sale deed of their client or the sale deed of their client’s vendor who purchased the said land from none other than Kuriyanna. He also points out that even Munigaiah bought another piece of 1 acre 1 Gunta on the same day his sale deed was registered. He argued that fraud vitiates all vide CHANGALAVARAYA NAIDU Vs. JAGANNATH, AIR 1994 SC 853. He thus seeks to set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to the lands purchased by his client.
- In re Kuriyanna’s W.P. Well 27440/2015:
(a) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner’s land, being land elsewhere, vested in the State by virtue of the Government Notification dated 31.1.1959 with effect from the following day; the occupier of the said land, Mr. Kuriyanna, in terms of his application in Form No. 1 filed under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, was registered as an “other tenant” under section 9A; this status remained intact despite the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 8.7.1974 made in his W.P. Well 2411/1974; the said judgment referred him to the Land Tribunal for claiming occupancy under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and accordingly he filed Form 7 on 17.9.1976; therefore, the Land Tribunal should have allowed the occupation of the entire 6 Acres & 04 Guntas and that it should have included the petitioners in the companion petition and the private respondents in both petitions to litigate the effect of their sale deeds. before a civil court.
(b) Learned counsel hastens to add that the sale deeds executed by Kuriyanna did not transfer any title to the purchaser and therefore he continued to be a tenant enjoying protection under Section 9A of the 1954 Act; nor otherwise he had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings of the Land Tribunal as no notice was sent to his address at Bangalore which was known to the Tribunal and the parties as mentioned in the title of the case in the impugned order. Once the absence of notice is proven, the length of the delay is reduced to insignificance. He also points out that the Tribunal could not secure a cast in favor of L.R. Mr. Munigaiah on the basis that he perfected his title by remaining on the land for more than 12 years. Thus he argues and seeks to set aside the impugned order.
JUDGMENT
The hon’ble justcie Krishna S.Dixit observed that
(i) W.P. Well 59736/2014 is allowed with costs as below and the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari setting aside the impugned order of the Land Tribunal to the extent it grants usufruct in respect of the petitioner’s lands; the entries in the sales records, if they were changed on the basis of the contested order, shall be immediately restored in favor of the petitioner.
(ii) In W.P.No. 59736/2014 L.R. 3. of the respondent Mr. Kuriyanna are collectively assessed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) and similarly the respondents claiming under or through Mr. Munigaiah are also jointly and severally assessed with exemplary costs in the same amount payable to the Social Security Fund of Advocates, Bengaluru.
(iii) Associate W.P.No. Bengaluru.
(iv) Expenses awarded as above shall be paid within the outer limit of eight weeks, failing which an additional payment of Rs.100/- per day per Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) will be levied.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR