Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1745
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.N.SATYANARAYANA, J.
Sri Yusuff Ali Khan S/o Late Mahaboob Ali Khan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No.11969 of 2008(LR) C/w Writ Petition No.11970 of 2008(LR)
Decided on : 09-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI R.KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SMT.B.P.RADHA, SRI T.A.KARUMBAIAH, SRI SYED KHADER NAWAZ, SRI IKRAMULLA KHAN, SRI ARUN SHYAM.M,
Headnote:
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Section 48A – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Land - Registered Sale Deeds - Occupancy Right - Whether they have any written document to show that tenancy right is granted in their favour – Held, There was no vested right in Noorjahan Begum and her father and even assuming that they are owners of lands in question, their claim that applicants are tenants of said lands in absence of any document, cannot be entertained - Therefore, when evidence available on record would clearly indicate that lands in question were not cultivated by anybody from 1971 to 1979 how applicants before Tribunal could file an application seeking occupancy right by filing Form itself is an enigma and for all these transactions, root cause is required entry not being altered in showing name of purchasers, Moosa Khan, Yusuf Ali Khan and Hassain Khan as owners - Court can revise orders, it can also assess facts contained by appreciating material which would support correctness or otherwise of claim of both parties and give quietus to that, which is permissible under Article 226 of Constitution - Indeed, it is not necessary that this Court should always remand matter back to lower authorities for fresh consideration thereby encourage litigation and give one more opportunity to parties to come back to this Court in seeking further revision - Hence, in facts and circumstances, this Court find it appropriate to give quietus to these matters and decide same by taking a final call on issue - Order passed by Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bengaluru, are set aside, consequently orders of conferring occupancy right in favour of contesting respondents by Land Tribunal, Devanahalli, are also set aside in holding that petitioners in these two petitions are registered absolute owners of land under 3 registered sale deeds dated executed by Noorjahan Begum in favour of Hassaine Khan and Abdul Gafar Sharief Saheb in favour of Moosa Khan and Yusuf Ali Khan – Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
The owners of land bearing Sy.Nos.59 to 64 of Meesaganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru District, have come up in these two writ petitions impugning the order of the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli, in conferring occupancy right in respect of aforesaid lands in two proceedings bearing No.LRF.6/1974-75 and LRF.7/1974-75 in favour of contesting respondents in these proceedings.
2. Brief facts leading to these two writ petitions are as under:
The subject matter of proceedings before the Land Tribunal, namely (1) Sy.No.59 measuring 5 acres 03 guntas,
(2) Sy.No.60 measuring 5 acres 03 guntas, (3) Sy.No.61 measuring 5 acres 01 gunta, (4) Sy.No.62 measuring 5 acres, (5) Sy.No.63 measuring 5 acres 02 guntas and (6) Sy.No.64 measuring 4 acres 36 guntas, were the properties belonging to one Abdul Gafar Sharief Saheb and his daughter Norojahan Begum @ Laila Begum.
3. The records would indicate that Abdul Gafar Sharief Saheb sold Sy.Nos.59 to 62 under two registered sale deeds of even date i.e., on 5.3.1965 in favour of two brothers, namely Moosa Khan and Yusuf Ali Khan. The lands which were sold in favour of Moosa Khan are Sy.Nos.59 and 60 and with reference to Yusuf Ali Khan, it is Sy.Nos.61 and 62. So far as Sy.Nos.63 and 64 are concerned, which were standing in the name of Noorjahan Begum, she sold the same in favour of one Hassaine Khan under registered sale deed dated 11.12.1964.
4. The registered sale deeds under which aforesaid three persons, who are also brothers purchased the lands in question are produced in these proceedings at Annexures-A and B in WP.No.11969/2008 and at Annexure-A in WP.No.11970/2008. The contents of the sale deeds would clearly reveal that the owners of the lands, namely Abdul Gafar Sharief Saheb who sold Sy.Nos.59 to 62 under two registered sale deeds and his daughter Noorjahan Begum who sold Sy.Nos.63 and 64 under another registered sale deed, were in cultivation, possession and enjoyment of the said lands and while executing the said sale deeds possession is also delivered in favour of the aforesaid three purchasers.
5. Admittedly, the aforesaid sale deeds are registered documents which are executed in favour of the respective purchasers much before the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (KLR Act for short), coming into force introducing Section 48A to the Act in granting rights to the tenants of the lands to seek occupancy rights in respect of the said lands. Therefore, at an undisputed point of time, under registered documents the title and possession of the lands is transferred to three brothers, namely Moosa Khan, Yusuf Ali Khan and Hassaine Khan.
6. The records would indicate that after the appointed date under the amended provisions of the KLR Act, two persons have filed applications seeking occupancy right in respect of aforesaid 6 lands. Admittedly, they are also brothers. First of the applications is filed by Mohammad Fakruddin on 31.12.1974 where he would seek occupancy right in respect of Sy.Nos.59, 60, 61 and 62. It is seen that for the very same lands, another application is filed by one D.Abdul Hameed on 28.6.1979. So far as lands bearing Sy.Nos.63 and 64 are concerned, only one application is filed by D.Abdul Hameed, which is dated 31.12.1974, in other words, he is claiming occupancy right in respect of all the 6 lands, whereas Mohammad Fakruddin claims occupancy right only in respect of 4 lands, namely Sy.Nos.59 to 62.
7. It is seen that the said two applications are taken up together by the Land Tribunal in proceedings bearing Nos.LRF.6 and 7 of 1974-75. So far as proceedings No.LRF.6/1974-75 is in respect of considering occupancy right of Sy.Nos.59 to 62 and proceedings No.LRF.7/1974-75 is in respect of Sy.Nos.63 and 64. In these two proceedings notice was issued to everybody and evidence was recorded, where the applicants, namely Mohammad Fakruddin and Abdul Hameed were not in a position to produce any documents to demonstrate that tenancy righ
