IMPORTANT POINTSAs per Sections 8 & 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Competent Authority shall issue notice to or provide an opportunity to be heard only to the ‘person concerned’, i.e., the person who has filed the statement under Section 6 of the Principal Act.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. :

This appeal arises out of order and judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) dated 26.03.2009, dismissing Writ Appeal No. 7758 of 2003 [ULC] filed by the Appellant herein against the order dated 21.10.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No. 35449 of 2001.

Factual Background:

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows: Five properties/Survey Nos. (533B2, 532A, 537, 533A, 539), totally measuring 3 acres and 11 cents, situated in Ullal village, Mangalore Agglomeration (‘joint family property’), originally belonged to the joint family of two sisters, namely, Smt. Korapalu Sapalyathi and Smt. Nemu Sapalyathi. Korapalu Sapalyathi had three children and Smt. Nemu Sapalyathi had seven children. After the death of the two sisters, the Appellant’s case is that their ten children benefited through a registered partition deed dated 9.01.1984. Through the said partition deed, Smt. Leela Sapalyathi, daughter of Smt. Korapalu Sapalyathi, allegedly came to hold a share of 1983 sq. mts. of land, including land to the extent of 30 cents falling under Survey No. 53/3A. Likewise, the other nine children of Smt. Korapalu Sapalyathi and Smt. Nemu Sapalyathi are also said to have got their share of the joint family property through the said partition deed.

3. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter, ‘Principal Act’) came into force in Karnataka on 17.02.1976. Padmanabha, one of the seven children of Smt. Nemu Sapalyathi, filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the Principal Act on 15.06.1984 declaring the particulars of the joint family property. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority, Mangalore Urban Agglomeration (Respondent No. 2 herein; hereinafter, ‘Competent Authority’) issued a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Principal Act to the declarant, i.e., Padmanabha to surrender excess vacant land of 9,489.48 sq. mts, which included land falling within Survey No. 53/3A. In response to the said notice, Padmanabha filed his objections on 1.07.1985 stating that the property belonged to his late mother and her sister and that after their death, the joint family property had been divided through the aforementioned partition deed. He further stated that the individual share of each of the children subsequent to the partition was within the ceiling limit prescribed under the Principal Act.

4. On 5.12.1994, the Competent Authority passed an order holding that the partition deed having been effected on 9.01.1984, i.e., subsequent to the commencement of the Principal Act, the same could not be considered as per Section 42 of the Principal Act. Thus, the Competent Authority directed that an extent of 5,210.10 sq. mts. of land in Ullal village held by the declarant be treated as excess vacant land to be surrendered. Subsequently, on 16.10.1996, the Competent Authority passed an award fixing compensation for the said excess land at Rs.15,630/. In the said award, it was stated that Gazette notification was made in respect of acquisition of the land on 27.10.1995 and 22.1.1996 as per the provisions of Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the Principal Act.

5. It is the Appellant’s case that he had executed a sale deed on 26.03.1994 with Smt. Leela Sapalyathi whereby he purchased a portion of Survey No. 53/3A measuring 14 cents comprising an old house D. No. 206 (hereinafter, ‘suit property’). The Appellant claims that he took possession of the suit property on the date of purchase and has been in possession till date. The Appellant further contends that after the said purchase, the suit property was mutated in his name. In this regard, he has produced copies of the Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops (‘RTC’) for the years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. The Appellant states that he was unaware of the Competent Authority’s orders dated 5.12.1994 and 16.10.1996 mentioned supra. In April 2001, the Appellant wishe