Smt. G. Rathnavati Rao and Others vs The Land Tribunal and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—The petitioners, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 29-9-1981 vide proceedings bearing No. TNC LRY 77-271 TRI-3728:76-77; vide Annexure-D passed by the first respondent and praying to declare that, the sale effected by the legal heirs of the second respondent and the 3rd and 4th respondents in favour of the 5th respondent vide sale deed dated 19-2-1997 vide Annexure-E is null and void ab initio and that, the respondents have no right, title and interest in the lands bearing Nos. 230/1A and 231/11A of Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District (now Udupi Districts), in the interest of justice and equity, have presented the instant writ petition.

The grievance of the petitioners is that, one Saraswathamma instituted O.S. Nos. 185 of 1964 and 145 of 1965 against one U.B. Pattabhi Rama Rao, for recovery of maintenance. The said suits came to be decreed and confirmed in R.A. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1966 respectively, filed by the contesting parties. Inspite of that, the decree has not been satisfied by the said Pattabhi Rama Rao. Hence, Smt. Saraswathamma has filed Execution Petition No. 60 of 1971 for recovery of the decretal amount by the sale of immovable properties belonging to the said Pattabhi Rama Rao. Execution Petition No. 60 of 1971 was allowed and sale certificate was issued to her by the Executing Court on 14-11-1972. Thereafter, the Principal Munsiff, Udupi, wrote a letter dated 14-11-1972 to the Sub-Registrar, Udupi, informing him about the sale certificate issued in favour of Smt. Saraswathamma. When things stood thus, one Thammayya Kannada filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Udupi, for registration of occupancy rights in respect of lands in Survey No. 230/1A to an extent of 40 cents and in Survey No. 231/11A to an extent of 25 cents. In the said applications the landowner-U.B. Pattabhiramaiah was impleaded as a party and the subsequent purchaser Smt. Saraswathamma or her legal heir-Keshava Rao was not arrayed as a party. The Land Tribunal proceeded and considered the application filed by one Thammaiah Kannada and granted occupancy rights to him by its order dated 29-9-1981, vide Annexure-D. Thereafter, said Thammaiah Kannada has sold the land in favour of fifth respondent. Subsequently, the State Government has initiated acquisition proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and certain lands belonging to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Keshava Rao and subsequently, the acquisition proceedings took place without notice to them and they were not aware of the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Thammaiah Kannada, as it was granted without impleading them as parties. Therefore, they are constrained to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for first respondent.

After careful evaluation of the entire material available on record including the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi, on 29-9-1981, I do not find any error as such committed by the Land Tribunal in allowing the application in favour of the applicant, who had filed application for registration of the occupancy rights. It is significant to note that, the Land Tribunal following the relevant provisions of Act and Rules, as specifically provided u/s 48-A(2) of the Act has issued the notice in Forms 8 and 9 in the village and Taluk Office and also issued individual notices to the concerned persons including the interested persons.

After recording the statements of applicant and third respondent that, the applicant is the tenant and the third respondent has no objection to grant occupancy rights in favour of the applicant in para 2 of the impugned order, has granted occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question, in favour of the applicant therein, i.e., deceased second respondent represented by his legal heirs 2(a) to 2(d) and respondents 3 and 4 herein. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or error much less material irregularity committed by the Land Tribunal in registering occupancy rights in favour of the applicant therein in view of the categorical statement made by one of the respondents who are the landowners and they are arrayed as parties and their names have been notified. Therefore, interference by this Court at this stage, after lapse of nearly 16 years is not justifiable nor I find any good ground as such made out by the petitioners to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted and was quick to point out that, the sale certificate has been issued by the Principal Munsiff, Udupi, as early as in 1972 to the Sub-Registrar, Udupi. It is duty cast upon the revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioners in the relevant record of rights. They have got the decree from the Competent Authority for having purchased the lands in question in auction proceedings in the Execution Petition No. 60 of 1971 in O.S. No. 185 of 1964 on the file of the learned Principal Munsiff, Udupi. The sale certificate has been issued on 14-11-1972. Therefore, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is a nullity in the eye of law and hence, it is not sustainable. The said submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted nor has got any substance for the reason that, sale certificate was issued as early as on 14-11-1972. Due to the death of auction purchaser, the petitioners being his legal representatives have to come on record before the Competent Authority by way of making necessary application. Petitioners have not made any sincere efforts to that effect to come on record. The relevant record of rights is maintained by the revenue authorities. The Land Tribunal has issued notice as provided u/s 48-A(2) in Forms 8 and 9 to the persons who are parties to the proceedings, including the interested persons. After following the due procedure as envisaged under the relevant provisions of Act and Rules, the Land Tribunal has registered the occupancy rights in favour of the applicant therein, i.e., respondents 2(a) to 2(d), 3 and 4. Therefore, the ground urged by the petitioners is not sustainable and it deserves to be rejected at the threshold.

Further, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches also. There is an inordinate delay of sixteen (16) years which is not explained by the petitioners satisfactorily. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners came to know only when the land has been notified by the State Government in the acquisition proceedings for the public purpose is not acceptable and cannot be given any credibility.

The petitioners while redressing their rights must be very vigilant and cautious and see that, their names have been notified in the record of rights. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners have failed to explain the inordinate delay satisfactorily nor assigned any convincing reason to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that, at this stage much water has flown under the bridge and third party right has been created and hence, interference at this stage is not justifiable and hence, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter as stated supra, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of merits as well as on delay and laches.