Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 249
High Court of Karnataka
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.
Narpath Golecha & Another
Versus
The Assistant Commissoner, Bangalore North Sub-division, Bangalore & Others
Writ Petition No. 8705 of 2006 connected with Writ Petition Nos. 99 of 2007, 071, 4959, 4900, 7196 & 3688 of 2006 (LR)
Decided on : 12-04-2012
For the Petitioners:Mushtaq Ahmed, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sriyuths Shashidhar S. Karmadi, High Court Government Pleader, Naveed Ahmed, A. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocates.
Headnote:KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Sections 2(A) (18), 44 & 48-A & Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, Rule 19(1): [Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J] Agricultural land converted into non-agricultural land - Order of Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, conferring occupancy right on tenant in possession of - Held, In view of the conversion order, the land has lost its character as an agricultural land. The land is within the Corporation limits and in the heart of Bangalore City, Katha in the name of the owner from 1965 and entry of names of purchasers and taxes paid by them to the Corporation all clearly dispel the contention advanced that the land remains as agricultural land. Despite placing all these materials before the Land Tribunal, without considering the same and without application of mind, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights. The order of Land Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and capricious. Even otherwise also, since it is held that land is not agricultural land and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain tenancy claim, question of remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal does not arise.
1. The name of Sri Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel be shown for respondent No.2 in place of L. Mallesh.
2. Petitioners herein are the purchasers of portion of the property in Sy.No.221 measuring 39 guntas of Doddakonte village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk by way of sites, after conversion of the said land by their erstwhile landlord one M Gujjarappa. However, the Land Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 7.2.2006 in LRF 673/74-75, has granted occupancy rights in favour of 2nd respondent one M Ramu accepting him as tenant in respect of the land in question. Hence, these petitions.
3. The Land Tribunal has opined that Form No.7 has been filed by the applicant in the year 1975 and on verification, it is found that from 1966 to 1975-76, the applicant was in possession of the land in question as a tenant and thereafter, the tenancy has been terminated. Further, also on the basis of the admission on the part of the original landlord Gujjarappa that in a portion of the property the applicant was residing, the Land Tribunal has come to the conclusion to grant occupancy rights in favour of the applicant.
4. Heard.
5. The contention of the petitioners’ counsel is that, petitioners are the purchasers of converted land in Sy.No.221 of Doddagunte village from its erstwhile vendor. In the year 1971 itself the said land was assessed to municipal taxes. As per Sections 112 and 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, once the land has been assessed by the Corporation or Municipality, it no more retains the character of an agricultural land. The Tribunal having failed to take note of the said fact, only based on some entries in the revenue records, has proceeded to grant occupancy rights in favour of the applicant, which is erroneous.
6. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted that the land in question has remained as an agricultural land.
7. By virtue of the provisions of Sections 112 and 114 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, when the land in question comes within the city limits and khata is made and the land is assessed to taxes, it does not retain the character of agricultural land. Without visualizing and verifying these aspects, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of the applicant stating that he is a tenant, without identifying his right, which appears to be without justification. If there is an admission on the part of M. Gujjarappa, the erstwhile landlord that the said applicant was residing in a portion of the property, it does not enure to the benefit of the applicant. In the circumstances, petitions are allowed and the impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 7.2.2006 is quashed.
13-4-2012 ORDERON “for being spoken to”
These matters were allowed on 12.4.2012 and the impugned order of the Land Tribunal was quashed. At the request of learned counsel for 2nd respondent in W.P.No.99/2007 to hear the matter through Senior Counsel, these matters are listed “for being spoken to”.
Heard the learned Senior Counsel, who raised the following points for consideration:-
(i) There is no conversion order;
(ii) Conversion must be under Section 93 of Mysore Land Revenue Code;
(iii) Land remains to be agricultural land even if it is not used for agricultural purposes;
(iv) Power of Attorney is not given authorising to sell the property;
(v) Question of tenancy has to be decided by the Land Tribunal and not by this Court.
With regard to nature of land, the Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the decision in the case of State of Karnataka and others v Shajakara Textiles Mills Ltd., (AIR 1995 SC 234 : (1995) 1 SCC 295).With reference to the last points raised, the learned Counsel requested to remand the matter to the Land Tribunal to decide the question of tenancy.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and other respondents have submitted that 2nd respondent has no locus standi to contest the matter as the property has been sold illegal immediately after grant of o
