Krishnapur Mutt vs The I Additional Land Tribunal and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—1. This matter having been heard substantially, the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to furnish certain particulars. The counsel for the petitioner has remained absent on this day as well as on an earlier occasion. Therefore, the matter is considered as heard and is disposed of.

The facts are as follows; the land bearing survey No. 369 measuring 9 acres, survey No. 340 measuring 5 acres and survey No. 316 measuring 10 acres of Shivalli village, Udupi Taluk, were claimed to be punja lands and not capable of being cultivated and part of a larger extent of land bearing survey No. 340 measuring 76.50 acres and survey No. 316 measures 300.98 acres. The factum of the lands being punja lands is reflected in the record of rights and it is the further assertion of the petitioner that the lands were never tenanted and it was punja land in occupation of the petitioner.

It is alleged that one P. Sripathy was the Manager of the petitioner, Shri. Krishnapur Mutt, Udupi, till he was removed recently and his father-in-law Shri K. Rama Rao is said to have filed an application in Form No. 7 seeking occupancy right under the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1961, dated 8.6.1981. The Manager of the Mutt, Sripathy, had not appeared before the Tribunal on the date of hearing. On the other hand, the son of Ram Rao Sri K. Lakshminarayana Rao, who was an employee of M/s. Karnataka Bank had appeared before the Land Tribunal and had supported the case of his father.

As this order was being dictated, Shri A.S. Mahesh, appearing for the petitioner appeared and disclosed that though he had sought adjournment on the earlier occasion to produce copies of writ petitions that were said to have been preferred against orders granting occupancy rights, he would now submit that after verification it is found that there are no writ petitions filed, as those were genuine cases of tenancy which Mr. Mahesh concedes. This is placed on record.

To continue with the order, it is stated that, the Land Tribunal according to the petitioner did not verify the entries in Form No. 7 and did not conduct any spot inspection. The Tribunal proceeded to grant occupancy rights in favour of the legal heirs of K.Rama Rao by the impugned order. It is asserted that the lands are non-agricultural lands, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction whatsoever to grant occupancy right. The properties are situated within the Municipal limits. The petitioner recently came to know that the legal heirs have entered into certain arrangements with property developers and developers have arranged to deposit large sums of money towards conversion and land is ordered to be converted for non-agricultural purposes. The petitioner came to know that with the aforesaid order of conversion, the respondents 3 to 13 are attempting to sell the portions of the lands. It is at this juncture, the petitioner came to know from the impugned order that a fraud has been committed on the Mutt and that the father-in-law and son-in-law have colluded together to acquire the property under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is only on this transaction having came to the petitioner''s knowledge in retrospect, that the present writ petition is sought to be filed.

It is further contended that, head of the petitioner Mutt is legally a minor and therefore he could not represented the Mutt before the Courts of law and therefore was defended by other devotees or by office bearers such as the Manager, T. Sripathy who had colluded along with his father-in-law in seeking occupancy rights and having supported the claim of occupancy rights by stating that he has no objection for grant of occupancy rights. The Tribunal has proceeded to confer occupancy rights in respect of non-agricultural land and without jurisdiction. This is the primary contention of the petitioner.

The respondents have entered appearance and filed objections. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 13 would submit that, the petition would have to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. The respondents submit that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 4.8.1981. The present petition is filed in the year 2005. Therefore, after a delay of 24 years, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Even otherwise, on merits it is pointed out that, Rama Rao, the father of respondents 3 to 9 and grand-father of respondents 10 to 13 had filed Form No. 7 seeking for grant of occupancy rights in respect of three items of land of Shivalli Village. The said Rama Rao had claimed tenancy under the Krishnapur Mutt. The then Manager of the said Krishnapur Mutt Sri T. Sripathy had admitted the tenancy of the claimant and had written a letter to the first respondent, thereby clearly stating that the said Rama Rao was a tenant in respect of the lands claimed by him under Krishnapur Mutt and hence occupancy rights in respect of the three items of land could be granted in his favour. It is on the basis of the said consent given by the Manager of Krishnapur Mutt, occupancy rights had been granted in favour of the claimant. The said fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. If the petitioner had any grievance in respect of the same, the petitioner ought to have approached this Hon''ble Court at the earliest point of time and not at a belated stage. No reasons have been stated as to why there is delay of more than 24 years in preferring the writ petition. It is also stated that, the respondents have subsequently sought for conversion of the land to non-agricultural use and the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 13.12.2004 has granted an order of conversion. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the land was punja land and was non-agricultural land and was without the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal is not tenable. The respondents further state that the record of rights have been mutated in favour of the legal representatives of Rama Rao and the legal representatives have subsequent to the non-alienation period, executed a sale deed in favour of M/S. Sai Developers in respect of the lands in question. The said M/S. Sai Developers in turn have sold the land in favour of third parties and therefore the petition having now been filed cannot be entertained since the interest of third parties has intervened and the petitioner has lost its right to challenge the proceedings. The allegation that the occupancy rights being granted in favour of the claimant since Rama Rao was none other than the father-in-law of the claimant and the further allegation that they were hand in glove is an unfair statement. T. Sripathy had admitted the tenancy of the claimant only on the basis of a Chalgeni Chit and the Land Tribunal after perusal of the Chalgeni Chit produced by the claimant and also by the express consent given by the Manager of Krishnapur Mutt having granted occupancy right. It cannot be said that there was fraud committed as sought to be asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also pointed out that, said T. Sripathy had also admitted the occupancy rights of other items of land in favour of other persons and addressed similar letters to the Land Tribunal and these orders had not been challenged by the petitioner and there is no substance that only insofar as these items of land which are the subject matter of this petition were fraudulent and there was fraud committed in considering the claim for occupancy rights. It is in this vein, the petition is sought to be resisted.

The subsequent purchaser, namely, Sai Developers has also filed statement of objections to assert that it is a bona fide purchaser for value and the properties are sold in favour of third parties. The petitioner has played fraud in challenging the grant of occupancy rights. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is hopelessly barred by delay and laches. The allegation of fraud is not substantiated in the light of the circumstance that, the very Sripathy has conceded the occupancy rights in respect of other parties. Therefore, if Sripathy was indeed acting fraudulently, the allegation would necessarily have to be in respect of other transactions, but it is conceded that the grant of occupancy right in respect of those parties is stated to be in order. The mere fact that the claimants were related to Sripathy by itself would not establish fraud. Therefore, there is no substance in this petition.

The Petition is hence dismissed.