Nagarathnamma and Others vs Venkataramanappa and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—1. The petitioner, who is no more, is now represented by her legal representatives.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner would restrict the claim to one item of land, namely, land bearing survey No. 65 of Ullal village, Bangalore North taluk. It is the petitioner''s case that she was the applicant for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Survey Nos. 4,5,7, 97, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 208, Ullala village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, totally measuring 72 acre 19 cents. Her application number originally was INA 2/59-60. Later, the matter was referred to the Land Tribunal and numbered as LRF INA 163/79-80.

The Land Tribunal is said to have passed an order dated 12.4.1989 granting occupancy rights. That order was challenged by one Hemanth Shetty in a writ petition in W.P. No. 25756/1991, which was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

The legal representatives of the deceased Nagarathnamma are said to have filed an appeal in WA 6009/1997, which was disposed of by an order dated 15.7.1998 and a direction was said to have been issued specifically that if the application of Shetty was available, only then the matter could be proceeded with. On such remand, the Deputy Commissioner is said to have passed an order dated 25.1.1999 holding that Hemanth Shetty had not filed any application and confirmed the lands in favour of the legal representative of the deceased Nagarathnamma. This order was not challenged by Hemanth Shetty. However, one K. Radha Krishna is said to have challenged the order dated 25.1.1999 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No. 127/1999. The said appeal was said to have been dismissed on 2.1.2002. Thus, the order of the Land Tribunal had been confirmed.

It is contended that one Venkataramanappa had filed a writ petition in WP 8833/1993 challenging the very same order of the Land Tribunal dated 12.4.1989 and the said writ petition was also disposed of by an order dated 3.9.1998 and the matter was said to have been remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner.

Thereafter, the Special Deputy Commissioner is said to have passed an order dated 30.11.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioners which was challenged in a writ petition in WP 5645/2002 and the petition is said to have been allowed by an order dated 11.4.2002.

The Special Deputy Commissioner is again said to have passed an order dated 25.2.2003 without considering the earlier order passed by him on 25.1.1999. In the later order, he is said to have rejected the claim of Nagarathnamma.

Therefore, it is contended that the two orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, one dated 25.1.1999 confirming the occupancy rights in favour of Nagarathnamma and another order dated 25.2.2003 rejecting the claim of Nagarathnamma are not reconciled.

Aggrieved by the later order dated 25.2.2003 the legal representatives of Nagarathnamma are said to have filed an appeal in Appeal No. 528/2003 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal is said to have been dismissed by an order dated 6.1.2004.

It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal had passed the above said impugned orders, without verifying the original records. The first respondent, it is alleged, had relied on an alleged order dated 14.8.1964, which had not been produced in the lower court. However, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal had arrived at a finding that there was in existence such an order and even though such order did not refer to the land bearing survey No. 65, the court below had come to the conclusion that land bearing survey No. 65 had been granted in favour of the first respondent. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that there was already a grant in favour of the first respondent. It is contended that even if there was a grant, the application of both the parties should have been clubbed and decided together.

It is pointed out that the first respondent had made claim on the basis of an alleged sale deed dated 24.2.1957. In that sale deed, the area mentioned was only 47 acres 31 guntas. Whereas, the claim made by the first respondent was in respect of land measuring more than 61 acres. This aspect has not been considered by the courts below.

It is contended that the first respondent had admitted in evidence that there was no application filed. Even then the court below had erroneously concluded that the lands had been granted in favour of the first respondent. The Deputy Commissioner in his order having noticed that from a perusal of the records in Case No. 2/59-60, Nagarathnamma had filed an application on 30.5.1959, seeking conferment of occupancy rights. Therefore, if the application of Nagarathnamma and the first respondent were available, they should have been clubbed and decided together. The Deputy Commissioner could not have placed reliance on orders claimed by the first respondent as the said orders were not binding on the petitioners.

It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner placing reliance on the order dated 28.5.1967, the original of which has not been produced before the court below, would not take away the rights of Nagarathnamma whose claim was made in the year 1959. Even if an order was passed on 28.5.1967 the authorities ought to have clubbed the applications and decided together.

It is pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal were relying on the order in Appeal No. 219/1983, which had nothing to do with the claim made by the petitioners.

It is pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner relied on an alleged order dated 14.8.1964 which was not produced, as stated earlier, and there is no mention of land bearing Sy. No. 65 in that order. But it had been included by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the first respondent. This aspect had not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal.

It is further contended that Nagarathnamma had not made any application on 23.12.1974 or 23.8.1975. But the Deputy Commissioner had wrongly concluded that she had made an application. The Deputy Commissioner had referred to the writ petition in WP 18218/1987, which had nothing to do with the present case. That was a public interest litigation filed in respect of Government Gomala Land in land bearing Sy. No. 199. Therefore, without looking into the records, the Deputy Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal had passed the impugned orders. The Deputy Commissioner, in his order, it is pointed out, had indicated that Nagarathnamma had made an application for compensation, which related grant of occupancy rights in respect of other lands in favour of other tenants, which is referable to 20 acres of wet land given to other tenants and had nothing to do with the claim made in respect of the present item of land.

It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner had given a finding that Nagarathnamma alienated the lands to the first respondent. There was no such sale deed executed by Nagarathnamma. There is reference to lands bearing Sy. Nos. 2, 3, 6, 20, 22, 32, 19, 35, 38, 29 and 27. Whereas, the sale deed does not mention any of these survey numbers. Therefore, it is asserted, that the Deputy Commissioner had not looked into the sale deed.

The Deputy Commissioner and the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, while passing the impugned orders, have included lands which have not been granted at any time to the first respondent. In the order of the Deputy Commissioner, survey No. 65 has been mentioned. Admittedly, this item has not been granted in favour of the first respondent at any time and the Deputy Commissioner had also referred to lands in survey Nos. 107, 205, 66 and 199. There was no order in respect of those lands. It is asserted that it is a clear case of fraud played by the Deputy Commissioner in making reference to those items of land. The first respondent had not even produced the order dated 14.8.1964. The Deputy Commissioner has made a mention of the said order to hold that lands bearing the above survey numbers had been granted.

It is contended that in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 66, the Deputy Commissioner had made a mention that there was already a grant, even though there was a specific rejection of the claim in the earlier order. This aspect has not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. Survey No. 66 was government land and could not have been granted in favour of any one.

It is contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner records that first respondent had denied the application of Nagarathnamma. But, annexures - R.35 and R.36 produced by the first respondent himself are the applications of Nagarathnamma. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal that there was no application of Nagarathnamma was also unsustainable. The order of the Deputy Commissioner refers to appeals in Appeal Nos. 2906 of 1965 and 2906 of 1966. The later number is not in existence. The Deputy Commissioner has also referred to an order in Appeal No. 219/1983 and WP 20174/1985, which are in respect of land survey No. 199, which is admittedly government gomal Land. The Deputy Commissioner without making a reference to Appeal No. 3090/1965 and 2296/1988 which related to land in survey Nos. 66 and 199 and in respect of survey No. 65. At the time of making the application, Nagarathnamma had referred old survey numbers, but at the time of enquiry, the correct survey numbers have been referred to and granted. The Deputy Commissioner had made a comment against Paramashivaiah on the ground that he was member of the Tribunal. On 12.4.1989, Paramashivaiah was not a member of the Tribunal. While passing the order, the Deputy Commissioner had without any basis included survey Nos. 65, 66 and 199 in favour of the first respondent. The land in survey No. 99 measuring more than 70 acres is government gomal land, which was already occupied by more than 3000 free houses site holders who had constructed their houses therein. In the petition in WP 18218/1987, the government had already filed an affidavit that survey No. 99 was government gomal land. Even then the Deputy Commissioner had granted the same in favour of the first respondent contrary to the stand of the government.

The first respondent had made a claim that one Hunsur Mastry Mallikarjunaiah was the inamdar of the village, but he was not inamdar of the village. One Narayana Rao Mani was the Inamdar.

It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal have thus passed the impugned orders without referring to the earlier order dated 25.1.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 2.1.2002 in Appeal No. 127/1999. Therefore, it is contended that, both the orders are liable to be set aside.

It is further contended that the following events are to be noticed.

In the order dated 14.8.1964 of the Deputy Commissioner, in favour of Venkataramanappa, there is no reference to land bearing survey No. 65, measuring 7 acres 36 guntas. The land in survey Sy. No. 66 is treated as Sarkari Korakalu. The claim to land in survey No. 199 is rejected as the same was found to be government gomal land.

By judgment dated 5.5.1966, the Appeal No. 2906/1965 is decided by MRAT and the entire order dated 14.8.1964 is set aside.

In his order dated 28.5.1967, the Deputy Commissioner had considered the claim in respect of land in survey Nos. 66 and 199.

By order dated 30.1.1970, the Appeal No. 2296/1968 was clubbed with Appeal No. 3090/1965 and decided again remanding the matter in respect of lands bearing survey No. 199, 66 and 208.

On 17.1.1978, the Deputy Commissioner had rejected the claim of Venkataramanappa and Srinivas Gupta.

On 25.1.1999, on the order passed in WP 25756/1988, the Deputy Commissioner had passed an order affirming the order of the Land Tribunal in favour of Nagarathnamma.

The Appeal filed against the above order in Appeal 127/99 has been dismissed.

Therefore, after setting aside the order dated 14.8.1964 by the MRAT, there is no fresh order in favour of Venkataramanappa. At any rate, there is no decision in respect of survey No. 65 in favour of Venkataramanappa by any authority. Even then, the Deputy Commissioner had arrived at a finding that the land bearing Sy. No. 65 was already granted, which it is contended, is factually incorrect.

The learned counsel, Shri G.D. Ashwathnarayana, appearing for the respondents has filed extensive and detailed written submissions seeking to justify the impugned orders. The same is taken into consideration and upon a close examination of the record, the following facts emerge.

Nagarathnamma, the deceased petitioner along with one Rajakumari Gupta is said to have purchased lands of Ullal village, as on 11.10.1947, from one Narayana Mane, the Inamdar of the village. Rajkumari Gupta is then said to have released her rights in respect of the lands in favour of Nagarathnamma. Thereafter, Nagarathnamma is said to have made an application under the provisions of the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, (Hereinafter referred to as the ''1954 Act'', for brevity) for the grant of lands measuring 73 acres and 19 guntas, as on 30.5.1959. She is also said to have made yet another application on the same day before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, under Section 9 of the 1954 Act, for grant of occupancy rights in respect of about 144 acres of land which she claimed was in her actual possession. The said application was said to have been transferred to the Land Tribunal, on the abolition of the Office of the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal is said to have conducted a spot inspection and is said to have ascertained her possession of the lands.

Incidentally, when her application was pending before the Special Deputy Commissioner, the Tahshildar, Bangalore North Taluk, is said to have stated, as on 24.12.1974, that he had no objection to register the lands mentioned in her application, in her favour, except lands bearing survey No. 162, 84, 206, 66, 93, 144, and 199, which were to be reserved for the State.

The Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in favour of Nagarathnamma as on 12.4.1989. The said grant was said to have been challenged by one Hanumantha Shetty, before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, in appeal No. 70/1989. On the abolition of the Appellate Authority, the matter was brought before this court and numbered as a writ petition, WP 25756/1991. The said petition was disposed of by an Order dated 16.10.1997, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. An appeal preferred against that Order, in WA 6009/1997 was said to have been dismissed. On such remand, the Special Deputy Commissioner is said to have confirmed the occupancy rights in favour of Nagarathnamma. That Order is said to have been challenged by Venkatramanappa, and the matter was brought before this Court, on the abolition of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, as a writ petition in WP 8833/1993. Nagarathnamma is said to have died during the pendency of the said petition. The said writ petition was said to have been allowed. On a remand, the claim on behalf of Nagarathnamma is said to have been rejected. A writ petition, in WP 5645/2002 is said to have been filed by the legal representatives of Nagarathnamma, the same is said to have been allowed and the matter was remanded. The impugned Orders are passed on such remand.

The Special Deputy Commissioner had rejected the claim of Nagarathnamma for grant of the lands claimed by her, on the finding that there was no reference to the lands in question in her original application dated 23.12.1974 or in the amended application dated 27.3.1975. It was also found that even in her statement dated 23.12.1974, before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, whereby she had requested for confirmation of occupancy rights, there was no mention of the lands in question. It was on the other hand, noticed that by an Order dated 20.5.1967, Venkataramanappa was registered as an occupant of the lands in Survey Nos. 56, 62 to 66, corresponding to old Survey Nos. 8, 10 and 19, and that Occupancy rights had been conferred on Venkataramanappa. Incidentally, Nagarathnamma who was a party to those proceedings had not challenged the same and it had attained finality.

It was found that Nagarathnamma had, in her application dated 30.5.1959, claimed occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing survey Nos. 2, 3, 6, 20, 22, 32, 19, 35, 38, 29 and 27, totally measuring 144 acres and 13 guntas. And that she along with one Rajkumari Gupta had purchased three Khayam Gutha villages of Ullal and its Dhakla villages, Bhasti and Nuggepalya of Yeshwanthpur hobli, in the year 1947. Gupta had released her rights in favour of Nagarathnamma, in the year 1959.

It was found that Nagarathnamma had filed yet another application on the very day, under Section 17 of the 1954 Act, claiming compensation in respect of lands, the details of which were shown therein, but the record did not disclose the fate of that second application.

Nagarathnamma was seen to have been registered as an occupant in respect of lands bearing survey Nos. 4, 5, 7, 97, 56, 62 to 65 and 208, as per Order of the Land Tribunal dated 12.4.1989, as already noticed.

The Additional Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, had in case No. 15 & 93/1959-60, by an Order dated 14.8.1964, granted occupancy rights in favour of one K.N. Srinivasa Gupta, in respect of lands in survey Nos. 3/3, 3/4, 5, 7, 11, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 97 and 207/1 and had rejected his claim to lands in survey Nos. 199, 66 and 208. It was noted that Venkatramanappa had purchased the land in survey No. 208 from the jodidar, under a sale deed dated 24.2.1957 and that he had been granted occupancy rights in case Nos. 70, 87 and 91/1959-60 by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in respect of lands in survey Nos. 66 and 199. Nagarathnamma was a party to those proceedings.

Srinivasa Gupta had challenged the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner, dated 14.8.1964 and 25.5.1967 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Hereinafter referred to as the ''KAT'', for brevity) and the matter had been remanded only to be rejected yet again. A further appeal having been dismissed, the same is said to have been challenged in a writ petition before this court, by Gupta, in WP 20174/1985, which was dismissed and the matter attained finality.

It is found that Venkatramanappa had challenged the Order dated 12.4.1989 passed by the Land Tribunal, in a petition before this Court in WP 8833/1993. The same is seen to have been allowed on 3.9.1998. On such remand, the claim of Nagarathnamma had been rejected by one of the impugned Orders dated 25.2.2003. This was on the finding that Nagarathnamma had never laid claim to the lands in question at the earliest point of time, nor later.

In so far as the land bearing survey No. 65 is concerned, it was found that though the Order dated 25.5.1967 of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition did not mention the same, all the relevant documents such as the Record of Rights, Index of lands, Receipts and Mutation extracts, produced by Venkataramanappa, did mention the said item of land and the said Order having attained finality, without challenge by Nagarathnamma, she was precluded from laying claim to the same.

The KAT, in turn, has affirmed the findings of the Special Deputy Commissioner.

It is seen that both the impugned orders are well considered Orders with meticulous reference to the record and cannot be faulted.

The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.