Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 817
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
Mahadevamma – Petitioner
Versus
Deena Seva Asharma Kengeri – Respondent
W.P. No. 52671 of 2014
Decided On : 27.11.2014
Sri. P.D. Surana, Advocate.
Sri. Deshraj, Mr. P. Changalaraya Reddy, Mr. Madhukar J.V.S. Advocates, Kiran Kumar, AGA.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that alienations of service inam lands between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 by the holder of the land or regrant are invalid, as per the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court. Additionally, the court emphasized that a sale deed in force is binding and cannot be challenged without a decree of cancellation from a competent court of law.
Headnote:
Alienation - Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 - Sy. No. 53 - 1,6,29,33,53 of Volagerehalli Village and Sy. No. 8 of Sonnenahalli Village - Full Bench of Karnataka High Court held that alienations of service inam lands between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 by the holder of the land or regrant is invalid - Alienation made to respondent No.1 by the regrantees was on 17.04.1972 subsequent to the order of regrant and prior to amendment to the Act which was permissible under the provisions of the Act - Sale deed dated 17.04.1972 in favour of respondent No.1 has not been declared to be null and void by any court of law - Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge such alienation made by respondent No.1 to two other persons or the cancellation that has taken place subsequently
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's mother and another person were regranted certain lands under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. The controversy arose when the petitioner sought to annul the alienation of the land made to respondent No.1 and to reenter her name in the revenue records. The Deputy Commissioner granted the request, but it was challenged by respondent No.1 in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alienation made to respondent No.1 was valid as it occurred before the amendment to the Act in 1978, which introduced a non-alienation clause. The court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the alienation made by respondent No.1 to two other persons or the subsequent cancellation.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the alienation of the land in question to respondent No.1 and the petitioner's right to challenge it and seek reentry in the revenue records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court, which held that alienations of service inam lands between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 by the holder of the land or regrant is invalid. The court also emphasized that the sale deed in favor of respondent No.1 had not been declared null and void by any court of law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order did not call for any interference as the petitioner had no locus standi to contest the entry of respondent No.1's name in the revenue records.
1. Petitioner has assailed order dated 01.08.2014 passed in proceeding No. RRT(S) CR.188/2011-12 on the file of Respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore (Annexure-F to the writ petition).
2. The relevant facts of the case are that petitioner’s mother Smt. Botamma @ Sanna Yellamma and Sri Sanna Yellappa were regranted certain lands under the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) along with Sanna Yellappa. The lands were regranted to them as said lands were Thoti Inam Service Lands. The re-grant was made in respect of lands bearing Sy. No. 1,6,29,33 and 53 of Volagerehalli Village and Sy. No. 8 of Sonnenahalli Village. In this writ petition the controversy is with regard to Sy. No. 53 measuring 1 Acre 1 gunta at Volagerahalli Village (hereinafter referred to as ‘land in question’ for the sake of convenience). The regrant order was passed in the year 1970. Subsequently, the regrantees alienated the land in question i.e., Sy. No. 53 measuring 1 Acre 1 gunta in favour of respondent No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 17.04.1972. Thereafter, respondent No.1 sold the said extent of land to two persons, namely, Errol Mathias and Lynette Mathias on 28.06.1972 by registered sale deed. It is also on record that on 20.05.1983, there was a registered deed of cancellation executed by the latter two persons in favour of respondent No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.1 sought for reentry of their name in the revenue records, which was permitted by the Revenue Authorities.
3. When the matter stood thus, petitioner herein approached the jurisdictional Tahsildar, with regard to annulling alienation made by them in respect of Sy. No. 1,6, 29, 33 as well as 53 of Valagerahalli Village and Sy. No. 8 of Sonnenahalli Village. Significantly, respondent No.1 herein who was the alienee of Sy. No. 53, the land in question, was not arrayed as a respondent in that proceeding. By order dated 18.02.1992, the Tahsildar held that the application filed by the petitioners were allowed. Being aggrieved by that order some of the respondents before the Tahsildar filed MA No.25/1993 before the learned District Judge at Bangalore. By judgment dated 31.10.2003, the appeal was dismissed. That judgment was assailed in W.P. No.3219/2005 before this court and on 12.07.2005 the said writ petition was also dismissed. As against that order SLP No. 23562/2005 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.03.2010. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the said SLP.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner herein sought for entry of her name in the revenue records and by the order dated 17.12.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, the request made by the petitioner was granted in respect of the land in question also. That order was challenged by respondent No.1 in W.P. No. 1062/2012 before this court. By order dated 02.07.2012 this court quashed order dated 17.12.2011 and remanded the matter to respondent No.4 – Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration and kept open all contentions on both sides. Pursuant to order dated 02.07.2012, respondent No.4 – Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order on 01.08.2014. By that order the Deputy Commissioner has stated that the name of respondent No.1 herein must be entered in respect of the land in question. That order is assailed by the petitioner herein in this writ petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1, who appears on Caveat as also the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for Respondent No.4 and 5 on advance notice and perused the material on record
6. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is no dispute that Sy. No. 53, the land in question, was one of the items regranted to the regrantees, one of whom is predecessor of the petitioner herein and it is also not in dispute that o
