Athmaramaiah Setty and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioners (a) to (d) claim to be the legal representatives of Late Atmaramaiah Setty while being the sons of one Laxminarayan Setty. According to the petitioners, Atmaramaiah Setty is their grant father. In support of their claim there is not a title of evidence placed along with the petition. The genealogical tree, a survivorship certificate much less a declaratory decree of a Civil Court over their status is unavailable. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the factum that petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Atmaramaiah Setty, it is too farfetched to contend that the petitioners have a subsisting right to question the order of the Land Tribunal, by maintaining this petition.

It is asserted that land in Sy. No. 67 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas of Kurubarahalli, Doddaballapur Taluk, is owned by the petitioners, though nothing is forthcoming from the petition over such an assertion. If petitioners are owners of the said agricultural lands, nothing prevented them from placing on record the revenue records, such as, the Index of land, Record of rights, Mutation register extract, or the RTC Pahani as maintained by the Prescribed Officer under Section 127 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ''Act'') or the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short ''Rules'') showing the names of the petitioners as the owners. If such records were available, then a presumption over the correctness of the entries therein was available, in the light of Section 133 of the said ''Act''. In the circumstances, that claim deserves rejection.

The RTC pahanis for the years 1984-85 to 1993-94, Annexures-B & B1, in respect land measuring 1 acre 24 guntas in Sy. No. 67, records the name of "Atmaramaiah Setty and others" in Column No. 9 as the ''Kathedars'', while, in Column 12, the name of "Chikka Hanumantharayappa" is shown as the ''cultivator''.

It is next contented that land measuring 30 guntas in Sy. No. 87 of Rosipura Village of Doddaballapur Taluk belongs to Vaikunta Janardhan Swamy Temple, Doddaballapura, of which Atmaramaiah Setty was the convener and was managing its affairs, while being in possession and cultivation of the lands. Reliance is placed upon Annexure-''A'' preliminary record of the year 1924-25 which ex-facie discloses the name of Kasaba Janardhana Swamy Temple, Doddaballapur, as the Kathedar of Sy. No. 87 measuring 30 guntas which is described as ''Devadaee Inam'', while in the remarks discloses the name of one Atmaramaiah''s son as convener, and the proceeds from the land is used for the temple.

The RTC pahanis for the years 1969-70 to 1985-86 Annexures-B2; B3; B4 & B5 discloses that in the column No. 9 the name of "Janardhana Swamy" is recorded as the owner of 30 guntas of land (26 guntas + 14 guntas kharab) in Sy. No. 87 of Rosipura village.

Petition is filed on 8.4.2011 calling in question the order dated 12.11.1982 of the Land Tribunal, Doddaballapur, in LRF/INA/606/80-81 conferring occupancy rights over lands measuring 1 acre 24 guntas in Sy. No. 67 of Kurubarahalli and 26 guntas in Sy. No. 87 of Rosipura Village. The said proceeding is initiated at the instance of A.C. Laxminarayana Setty, the applicant invoking Section 6A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, for being registered as an occupant, claiming to be a tenant of the lands, vested in the State. The temple and the Tahsildar, Doddaballapur are arraigned as respondents in the proceeding.

The Tahsildar having represented the temple, it cannot be said that the son of Atmaramaiah Setty, the convener, was a necessary and proper party to the proceeding. In fact, according to the petitioners, Atmaramaiah Setty and his son Laxminarayana Setty were dead long before the proceeding before the Land Tribunal. Their Death Certificates are not forthcoming from the petition, another reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioners. The RTC pahani in respect of Sy. No. 87 clearly reveals that it is a "Devadaee Inam" of Janardhana Swamy Temple. However the RTC pahani in respect of Sy. No. 67, is from the year 1984-85 onwards i.e., after the order dated 12.11.1982, impugned. In column No. 9, the name mentioned is Atmaramaiah Setty and ''others''. Who are ''others''? is not forthcoming. Hence it is inappropriate to accept the plea that ''Atmaramaiah Setty'' is the very same person through whom petitioners claim lineage.

The explanation of the petitioners that petitioners became aware of the order impugned, by stating thus in paragraph 8 of the memorandum of writ petition: "recently through the respondent No. 4, it is submitted that recently the 4th respondent came near the land Sy. No. 87 of Rosipura village alleging that she purchased the land from the 3rd respondent", and further "immediately the petitioners verified in the Land Tribunal and obtained the certified copy of the order and relevant documents from the Land Tribunal", are statements far from truth and does not instill confidence in the mind of the Court, since the order impugned discloses that one H.L. Narayan Setty applied for a copy on 3.10.2009 and copy was delivered on 20.10.2009 by the Tahsildar, Doddaballapura. Yet again, if the date of the certified copy is reckoned, there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition on 08.04.2011. The petition deserves to be dismissed for delay and latches.

Petitioners by not placing relevant material before Court which might throw light upon the matter in question is really to obtain a decision from this court in the absence of material and information which a properly informed decision requires, in short, to obtain a decision on imperfect knowledge. The extreme impropriety of such a course cannot be made too plain.

For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is accordingly, rejected.