Venkataravanappa vs The Chairman and the Assistant Commissioner, A. Narayanaswamy, Kanakappa, Since dead, rep. by LRs. Raghu and Others and R. Shivappa

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 23.4.2010, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in appeal No. 243/2004 vide Annexure-''E''. By the impugned order at Annexure- ''E'', the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, has set-aside the order passed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are;

The petitioner claims that his father Gangappa was cultivating 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 37 of Kempadenahalli village. After the death of petitioner''s father, the petitioner continued to cultivate the land. The petitioner filed Form No. 7A for grant of land on 27.1.1999. The first respondent granted land by order dated 7.5.2002 in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent sold the property in favour of the 4th respondent through registered sale deed dated 29.11.2002 after the first respondent passed the order in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4, after the lapse of two years, filed appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 243/2004 on 23.2.2004. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 23.4.2010 has set-aside the order passed by the first respondent. Therefore, this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the petitioner''s father was the tenant in respect of the land in question. After his death, the petitioner was cultivating the land. The petitioner filed Form No. 7A claiming grant of land. The first respondent granted land by order dated 7.5.2002. Thereafter, the second respondent has sold the property in favour of the fourth respondent on 29.11.2002. The second respondent has not conveyed anything in favour of the fourth respondent as the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in entertaining the appeal. The fourth respondent had no locus-standi to file the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. He placed reliance on the decision reported in ILR 2006 Kar 3368.

As against this, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the land in question was not a tenanted land. The respondent No. 4 is a bona fide purchaser. He was not aware of the order passed by the first respondent. After coming to know about the order passed by the 1st respondent in the year 2004, the respondent No. 4 has preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. He also submitted that the respondent No. 4 being the purchaser had locus-standi to challenge the order passed by the first respondent. The Appellate Tribunal has rightly reversed the order passed by the first respondent. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal does not call for interference.

The learned AGA submitted that the first respondent has passed order on 7.5.2002. Thereafter, the second respondent has sold the property in favour of the fourth respondent on 29.11.2002. As the land was granted in favour of the petitioner, the second respondent had no right to sell the property in favour of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained in law.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal can be sustained in law? It is relevant to note, the petitioner claims that his father was cultivating 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 37 of Kempadenahalli village as tenant. Thereafter, the petitioner was cultivating the land. The petitioner has filed Form No. 7A on 27.1.1999 before the first respondent for grant of land. The first respondent by order dated 7. 5.2002 has granted land in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent has participated in the proceedings Being aware of the order passed by the first respondent, the second respondent has sold the property in favour of the fourth respondent through registered sale-deed dated 29.11.2002. As the land was granted in favour of the petitioner, the second respondent had no right to sell the property in favour of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of the fourth respondent is a sham and void document. It does not convey anything. Based on that, the respondent No. 4 cannot claim any right, title or interest in the property. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in entertaining the appeal. The respondent No. 4 had no locus standi to prefer the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained in law as it is illegal.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 243/2004 vide Annexure-''E'' is hereby quashed.