Gangavva and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

B. Veerappa, J—The petitioners filed the above writ petitions seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to effect necessary changes to enter the name of the petitioners in Column No. 9 and 12(2) of Record of Rights in respect of Sy. No. 26A/12 measuring 2 acres 27 guntas, Sy. No. 40A/21 measuring 22 guntas and 28/4 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas by considering the application dated 29.10.2002, and also for a direction to respondents to delete the entry of stay order dated 23.3.1982 in W.P. No. 11620/82 effected in Column No. 11 in view of order dated 4.7.1986 and order dated 24.7.2002 in LRRP. 4381/1989 as per annexures-H and B respectively.

It is the case of petitioners that their ancestors filed application for grant of occupancy rights in Form No. 7 under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. After contest the Land Tribunal, Belagavi, by its order dated 30.09.1981 granted occupancy rights. Against the said order, the landlords preferred writ petition in W.P. No. 11621/1982. In view of amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force, the said writ petition was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belagavi, and it was re-numbered as RALR. 468/1986 and the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the owners by order dated 5.5.1989. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlords preferred revision petition in LRRP. 4381/1989 before this Court and this Court, after hearing both parties dismissed the revision petition on 24.7.2002 confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, dated 30.9.1981.

In pursuance of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the Special Tahasildar, Belagavi, issued Form No. 10 in favour of petitioners and thereafter, the petitioners made application on 29.10.2002 requesting the respondent-3 Tahasildar to effect necessary entries in the revenue records, by paying premium of Rs. 3000/-. One of the applicant Bharma Balappa Chowgla died on 4.8.2014 leaving behind petitioners 1 to 3 and applicant No. 3 Ramachandra Basavanthappa Chowgla also died leaving behind respondents 9 to 12 and thereafter, the petitioners again approached the Tahasildar and concerned officers to effect necessary mutation in respect of the lands in question. The authorities for one or the other reason started delaying to effect necessary entries. The petitioners who are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question as on today, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, are before this Court seeking for the relief as prayed for.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

Smt. Hemalekha, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended, that the order passed by the Land Tribunal as long back as on 30.9.81 is final and conclusive. The appeal and revision petition filed by the landlord, both before the appellate authority as well as before this Court, has been dismissed on 24.7.2002. Thereafter, in spite of repeated representations made to the resppndent-3/Tahasildar to effect necessary changes in the revenue records, the 3rd respondent has not taken any action and therefore, the petitioners are unnecessarily driven before this Court.

Per contra, learned AGA on instructions contend that disposal of both W.P. 11620/1982 and LRRP. 4381/1989 was not brought to the notice of the Tahasildar and therefore, he has not passed any orders till today. Now since the Tahasildar is appraised of the disposal of the petition and revision petition, there is no impediment for him to consider the application dated 29.10.2002 and pass orders in accordance with law.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

It is an admitted fact that the Land Tribunal, Belagavi granted occupancy rights in favour of petitioners on 30.09.1981 and the said order of the Land Tribunal was the subject matter of appeal in RALR. No. 468/1986 before the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belagavi. After contest, the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belagavi, by its order dated 5.5.1989 has dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, the landlord preferred LRRP. 4381/1989 before this Court and this Court after considering the entire material on record by its order dated 24.7.2002 has dismissed the revision petition holding that Exhibit A. 12 is a lease deed and not a mortgage deed. Once the said document is held to be lease deed, the tenancy of respondents 3 to 6 stands recognized from the year 1948 as the land was a tenanted land as on the appointed date and thus it was vested with the Government and respondents 3 to 6 were entitled to grant occupancy rights under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and accordingly dismissed the revision petition confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal as final and conclusive.

It is also not in dispute that jurisdictional Tahasildar had issued Form 10m favour of petitioners as long back as on 20.12.1981 in respect of the grant of occupancy rights by the Tribunal and affirmed by this Court and in spite of grant of Form No. 10 the authorities have not considered the representation of the petitioners to enter their names in the revenue records both in column Nos. 9 and 12(2).

It is well settled law, whenever aggrieved party has filed representation before concerned authority it is for the authority to consider and pass orders in accordance with law. Though the representation is made by the petitioners as long back as on 29.10.12, the respondent No. 3 has not considered the same only on the ground that he was not aware of disposal of the proceedings before this Court in W.P. No. 11620/1982 and LRRP. No. 4381/1989 which were disposed of on 4.7.1986 and 24.7.2002 respectively. In fact, the said factual aspects has been mentioned by the petitioners in their representation dated 29.10.2002 and there is no impediment for the Tahasildar to consider and pass orders. The same has not been done in the present case.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent-3 Tahasildar is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 20.10.2002 to enter the name of petitioners in column No. 9 and 12(2) of the Record of rights in respect of Sy. No. 26A/12 measuring 2 acres 27 guntas, Sy. No. 40A/21 measuring 22 guntas and Sy. No. 28/4 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas satiated at Modage village, Belgaum Taluk, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The respondent-3-Tahasildar is also directed to delete the entry of stay order dated 23.3.1982 made in W.P. 11620/82 effected in Column No. 11 in view of the order dated 4.7.1986 in W.P. 11620/1982 and order dated 24.7.2002 in LRRP. 4381/1989, as per Annexures-B and H, while considering the representation of the petitioners dated 29.10.2002.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.