MAIN POINT
A conveyance deed cannot be challenged after 104 years, that too when many third party rights are created.

Headnote:Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 – Section 67 – Section 67 only applies to public roads, streets, lanes etc. or to such lands which are not the property of – It does not apply in case of property recorded in the ownership of any other person or persons – Section 67 cannot be used to dispute the title of persons holding the property for more than 100 years – After 104 years of the execution of the original conveyance deed, and after acquiring various lands out of this very estate, State cannot be permitted to urge that original conveyance deed is fraudulent or the subsequent transfers are all collusive and, as such, void. (Para 15, 17, 18)
       Facts of the case:
       By a Conveyance Deed dated 25.08.1900, one Lancelot Ricketts sold his property known as “Beaulieu” measuring 24 acres and 12 gunthas situated in Bengaluru. This conveyance deed was executed in favour of the Dewan of Mysore.
       The Office of the Karnataka Public Service Commission had a boundary adjoining “Beaulieu” estate in which a hotel under the name of Atria was being run. There were a number of other commercial buildings and residences, including the residence of appellant M. Shankaranarayanan in this estate.
       A complaint was sent by the Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service Commission on 14.05.2004 that the property transferred by the original owner Lancelot Ricketts in favour of the Dewan of Mysore in the year 1900 has been fraudulently shown as actually been purchased for the First Princess of Mysore out of her personal funds. It was complained that the acquisition of 20 acres and 9 gunthas of land, out of the 24 acres and 12 gunthas, was a fraudulent acquisition and would not confer any rights upon the owners.
       As a result of this complaint, summary proceedings under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 were initiated against the occupants of the land. Aggrieved by this action, one of the parties -Smt. Asha Chakko, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, whereas the other parties filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.
       The Single Judge quashed the order passed by the State of Karnataka on the ground that the State had no jurisdiction to pass the same.
       The State of Karnataka preferred an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellant M. Sankaranarayanan applied for transfer of his appeal, which had been filed before the Appellate Tribunal, to the High Court. This prayer was allowed by the Supreme Court.
       The writ appeal filed by the State of Karnataka in the case of Smt. Asha Chakko was allowed mainly on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable, since the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Tribunal. As far as transferred appeal of appellant M. Sankaranarayanan is concerned, the High Court held that since the appeal had been filed before the Tribunal, it would be proper to remit it back to the Tribunal for decision.
       Finding of the Court:
       The “Beaulieu” estate was purchased by the Dewan of Mysore on behalf of the First Princess and the consideration was paid from the personal funds of First Princess. Therefore, the State of Karnataka has no right over the property.

       Result:
       Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Leave granted.

1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these civil appeals, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. The relevant facts are that, by a Conveyance Deed dated 25.08.1900, one Lancelot Ricketts sold his property known as “Beaulieu” measuring 24 acres and 12 gunthas situated in Bengaluru. This conveyance deed was executed in favour of the Dewan of Mysore. It is not disputed that thereafter, on various occasions, portions of this Estate were acquired by the erstwhile State of Mysore, both before and after independence.

3. This “Beaulieu” Estate is apparently located in the heart of Bengaluru city. It appears that the Office of the Karnataka Public Service Commission had a boundary adjoining “Beaulieu” estate in which a hotel under the name of Atria was being run. There were a number of other commercial buildings and residences, including the residence of appellant M. Shankaranarayanan in this estate.

4. A complaint was sent by the Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service Commission on 14.05.2004 that, in the year 1900, the property had been transferred by the original owner Lancelot Ricketts in favour of the Dewan of Mysore. However, it was fraudulently shown that the property had actually been purchased for the First Princess of Mysore out of her personal funds. It was alleged that the original conveyance deed dated 25.08.1900 had been executed only in favour of the Dewan of Mysore. Furthermore, no stamp duty was paid on the sale deed and, therefore, it was complained that the sale was either totally illegal or that the sale was in favour of the State of Mysore and “Beaulieu” estate was not the personal property of the First Princess. In the same complaint, it was also mentioned that, in the year 1956, the Government of Mysore acquired 6 acres of “Beaulieu” estate and, in those proceedings, Rajkumari Leelavathi Devi was notified as the owner of the estate. In the year 1959, some other portions of the estate were acquired and this time K. Basavaraj Urs was shown as the owner. It was complained that the acquisition of 20 acres and 9 gunthas of land, out of the 24 acres and 12 gunthas, was a fraudulent acquisition and would not confer any rights upon the owners.

5. As a result of this complaint, summary proceedings under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the KLR Act’) were initiated against the occupants of the land. Aggrieved by this action, one of the parties -Smt. Asha Chakko, who is appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4939 of 2017 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 12595 of 2014] filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, whereas the other parties filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Single Judge quashed the order passed by the State of Karnataka on the ground that the State had no jurisdiction to pass the same.

6. The State of Karnataka preferred an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellant M. Sankaranarayanan applied for transfer of his appeal, which had been filed before the Appellate Tribunal, to the High Court. This prayer was rejected by the Karnataka High Court. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court in SLP (C) No. 25034 of 2011 for transfer of his case. This petition was allowed and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:

“3. The appellant applied to the High Court for transfer of Appeal No. 690 of 2005, titled as M. Sankaranarayanan vs. Deputy Commissioner and others: filed by him before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) to the High Court for hearing the same along with Writ Appeal No. 643 of 2009. The High Court dismissed the application. While dismissing the application, the High Court observed that the appeal pending before the KAT has to be heard and decided by the Tribunal itself and it cannot be clubbed with the writ appeal.

4. Having regard to the fact that the controversy in Writ Appeal No. 643 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 322

MAIN POINTA conveyance deed cannot be challenged after 104 years, that too when many third party rights are created.

MAIN POINT
A conveyance deed cannot be challenged after 104 years, that too when many third party rights are created.