Back
2006 Supreme(Kar) 516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
RAM MOHAN REDDY, J.
HAJI B. UNNI SULAIMAN - Petitioner.
Versus
BEEPATHUMMA AND OTHERS - Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 27070 of 2002 (LR).
Decided on 7th July, 2006
Sri Prakash Hegde, Advocate for Respondent-I;
Sri R.B. Annappanavar, Government Advocate for Respondents-2 and:3.
Headnote:Constitution of India -Equity jurisdiction under -Articles 226 -Equity jurisdiction under -Exercise of -Court may so act to prevent perpetuation of a legal fraud and it is obliged to do justice by promoting good faith as far as it lies within its power -Equity is known to defend law from craftily evasions and new subtleties invented to evade law.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 -Challenge to grant of occupancy rights -Section 48-A -Challenge to grant of occupancy rights -Petitioner s claim based on a Settlement Deed -Found to have been fabricated -Hence, petition is frivolous -Filed after twenty years -In short, petitioner sought to obtain a decision on improper knowledge -Hence, Court declined to exercise its equity jurisdiction under Article 226. [Ram Mohan Reddy, J]: A perusal of Annexure-"A" said to be the true copy of the original, as sworn to, in the verifying affidavit of one Haji B. Unni Sulaiman, the petitioner herein, discloses that Sy.No. 75/5 measuring 14 cents is one amongst several other immovable properties, subject matter of the Settlement Deed duly registered on 10-08-1977. A careful examination of the Photostat copy said to be that of the original Settlement deed annexed to the memo dated 7-7-2006 of the petitioner, discloses that the words and figures Sy.No. 75/5, 14 cents is an overwriting in ink. The contents of the certified copy of the Settlement deed Annexure-" A", issued by the Sub-Registrar, Bantwal, annexed to the memo dated 7-7-2006 of the first respondent discloses the details and particulars of all the other immovable properties except Sy.No. 75/5. The veracity of the claim of the petitioner when tested with the entries in the certified copy of the registered settlement deed filed by Respondent No.1, it is indisputable that Sy.No. 75/5 is not one of the immovable properties subject matter of the settlement. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to how the overwritten in ink, in the Photostat copy of the alleged original settlement deed came to be made. Annexure-" A" , according to the deponent in the verifying affidavit, is said to be a true copy of the original. The only original placed before Court along with the memo is a Photostat copy with the overwriting in ink recording Sy.No. 75/5 measuring 14 cents. In the absence of any explanation or production of the original of the Settlement Deed as also the overwriting in ink in the Photostat copy produced with the memo of the petitioner, one cannot but conclude that the document is fabricated and fictitious, got up for the purpose of this case. There is yet another reason as to why the claim of the petitioner is unbelievable, i.e., the petitioner has not produced the revenue records such as the mutation extract; the RTC phani to substantiate that after the execution of the settlement deed the entries in the revenue records in respect of the said property were substituted in the name of the petitioner. There is considerable force in the submission that the petitioner has no locus-standi to question the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights over Sy.No. 75/5, in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a fabricated document. In the premise of a claim based on a fabricated document, the. petitioner intends to question the order impugned granting occupancy rights over Sy.No. 75/5 measuring 14 cents in favour of the 1st respondent which is impermissible.
Equity -Purpose -Purpose -Equity is known to defend law from craftily evasions and new subtleties invented to evade law.
Record of Rights -Significance of -Significance of -Petitioner claimed right by virtue of a Settlement Deed -Failed to produce revenue records to show that, after execution of Settlement Deed, entries in revenue records in respect of said property were substituted in the name of petitioner -Moreover, very document found to have been fabricated -Hence, claim of petitioner is frivolous.
Petitioner claims to be the owner of non-agricultural punja land measuring 14 cents in Barya Village of Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, having acquired right, title and interest, under a settlement deed Annexure-A registered as document No. 138 of 1977-78 of Book 1, Volume 439 at Pages 196 to 200, dated 10-8-1977 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bantwal, aggrieved by the order dated 24-7-1981, Annexure-C of the Land Tribunal in Case No. LRY 115/74-75, insofar as it relates to the grant of occupancy rights over land measuring 14 cents in Sy. No. 75/5 in favour of the 1st respondent, has presented this petition on 15-7-2002.
2. In the order impugned, respondent-landlord is shown as Sri Saralikatte, Jumma Masjid, Thekkar Village. The Land Tribunal having held an enquiry into the vesting as well as the claim of tenancy on the basis of the declaration filed by respondent 1, recorded a finding of fact that the declarant was a lawful tenant of the lands in question under the landlord and granted the occupancy rights over Sy. No. 75/5 measuring 14 cents amongst other properties. But, this writ petition is filed after an inordinate delay of 20 years alleging that neither the mother of the petitioner nor the petitioner was made a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal though they are the owners of the property in question.
3. The explanation for the delay in filing this writ petition is set out in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The material particulars such as the date when the petitioner came to know of the order, the date of application, the date of receipt of the order impugned, etc., is wanting and hence the explanation is as bald as can be. According to the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, Form 10 the certificate of registration under Section 55(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was granted to the 1st respondent in the year 1981 and the name of the 1st respondent was substituted in all revenue records relating to Sy. No. 75/5. It is not the case of the petitioner that the revenue records relating to the said survey number were substituted into his name after the execution and registration of the deed of settlement Annexure-A. The explanation offered is deficient and does not constitute sufficient cause for every day's delay. The writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches.
4. Sri Prakash Hegde, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent points out to a certified copy of the registered settlement deed, annexed to the memo dated 7-7-2006, to contend that Sy. No. 75/5 measuring 14 cents is not one of the immovable properties, subject-matter of settlement. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner laid a false claim over Sy. No. 75/5 by fabricating the settlement deed Annexure-A. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-A is the true copy of a photostat copy of the original settlement deed in which the words "Sy. No. 75/5 measuring 14 cents" is overwritten in ink. Learned Counsel for the petitioner produced the photostat copy of the original settlement deed, enclosed to the memo dated 7-7-2006.
5. A perusal of Annexure-A said to be the true copy of the original, as sworn to, in the verifying affidavit of one Haji B. Unni Sulaiman, the petitioner herein, discloses that Sy. No. 75/5 measuring 14 cents is one amongst several other immovable properties, subject-matter of the settlement deed duly registered on 10-8-1977. A careful examination of the photostat copy said to be that of the original settlement deed annexed to the memo dated 7-7-2006 of the petitioner, discloses that the words and figures Sy. No. 75/5, 14 cents is an overwriting in ink. The contents of the certified copy of the settlement deed Annexure-A, issued by the Sub-Registrar, Bantwal, annexed to the memo dated 7-7-2006 of the 1st respondent discloses the details and particulars of all the other immovable properties except Sy. No. 75/5. The veracity of the claim of the petitioner
