Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH, J.
SRI SHIVADARSHAN BALSE S/O LATE RAMESH BALSE – Appellant
Vs.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.10549 OF 2008(LR)
Decided on : 21-02-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI A.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.D.N.PRASAD, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP, SRI SUNIL S.RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE, SRI B.V.SHANKARANARAYAN RAO, ADVOCATE,
Headnote:SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 – Section 19(b) – Bona fide purchaser – Sale deeds executed in favour of subsequent purchaser indicating source of title of vendor to the property acquired by orders of Special Tahsildar – No material produced to substantiate order of Tahsildar – Source of title, which is order of Land Tribunal, totally absent in sale deed – Thus source of title itself not being identifiable, subsequent purchasers had taken risk of purchasing property – Sale deeds indicating vendor suppressing grant of land by Tribunal – No bona fide attempt made by subsequent purchasers to verify title deed – They cannot be held to be bona fide purchasers.
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 – Sections 45, 48-A – Grant of occupancy rights by Land Tribunal – Fraud committed by tenants in tampering records wherein application for grant of occupancy rights to extent of land measuring one acre, 20 guntas was changed to 6 acres, 34 guntas – Fraud was proved and established – Order of Tribunal granting occupancy rights, held, not proper.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – Article 226 – Delay and laches – Delay in filing petition against order of Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to tenants – Proceedings before Land Tribunal conducted behind back of petitioner, landlord – Landlord though lawful owner of property, was not arrayed as respondent before Tribunal – Held, Delay cannot be attributed to landlord.
The case of the petitioner is that earlier one Sri.R.Pillappa purchased the entire Jodi village of, Myadarahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, from one Sri.S.R.Chakravarthi and others by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 14.08.1933. Thereafter, Sri.S.R.Chakravarthi sold the said land to Sri.Narasinga Rao Sirur by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24.07.1941. He was conferred with khayam gutta, title deed and was entitled to all privileges of title deeds. The revenue entries were entered in his favour.
2. During his lifetime, he had executed a Will bequeathing all the properties in favour of his only daughter, Smt.Sharadha Bai Balse. She died on 30.10.1970 and after her death, her legal representatives have succeeded to her estate including the aforesaid lands.
3. In 1964-67, in view of the enactment of the Inams Abolition Act, some persons had filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru, for grant of certain lands of Myadarahalli. Smt.Sharadha Bai Balse had also filed an application for regrant of the lands. Pursuant to the same, certain lands were granted in her favour and were rejected with regard to the other lands. Aggrieved by the rejection of her plea in respect of certain lands, she filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal Nos.8178-18/1974.
4. The appeals were allowed by the order dated 30.06.1996, by setting aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, Smt.Sharadha Bai Balse, filed an application before the competent authority seeking registration of the name of the occupant in respect of the land bearing Survey No.34, measuring an extent of 6 acres, 11 guntas.
5. Respondent no.3 filed an application before the second respondent – Land Tribunal, claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing survey No.33 measuring 2 acres, 12 guntas, in Survey No.34 measuring 1 acre, 12 guntas and in survey No.38 measuring an extent of 1 acre, 38 guntas, situated at Myadarahalli Village. The Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title. No notice was issued to the petitioner. Considering the landlord being absent, they were placed exparte and occupancy rights was granted in respect of the land bearing survey Nos.33, measuring an extent of 2 acres, 12 guntas including 16 guntas of kharab and Survey No.34, measuring 6 acres, 34 guntas including 23 guntas of kharab. Since no notice was issued to the petitioner, he was not aware that the occupancy rights were granted and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. It is only recently when the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed as having been abated in a collateral proceeding, the petitioner on verification, came to know about the order of the Tribunal. Immediately on coming to know of the same, the present petition is filed seeking to question the order of the land Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Land Tribunal has been obtained behind his back. That even though the petitioner was the lawful owner in possession of the property, no notice was issued to him. Therefore, the order of the Land Tribunal requires to be set-aside on that ground itself. Furthermore, the application of the third respondent was only to an extent of 1 acre, 12 guntas in Survey No.34. However, what has been granted to the third respondent is 6 acres, 11 guntas. Such a grant is opposed to law and facts. That the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant land of a greater extent, than what had been applied for.
7. So far as the delay in filing the writ petition is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. It is only when he was prosecuting the miscellaneous petition, which was dismissed as abated, he came to know of the order of the Land Tribunal. Immediately, th
