Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Smt. Sudha Sirwar W/o N. Udaykumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 200999 of 2019
Decided On : 26-05-2021
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Section 79 – Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Enemy Property Act, 1968 – Forfeiture of Land – Petitioners in this writ petition call in question an order passed by Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi whereby lands belonging to petitioners are sought to be forfeited in favour of Government invoking provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and Enemy Property Act, 1968.
Finding of the Court:
A perusal at order impugned passed by Regional Commissioner bears no reference or a consideration in manner in which it is necessary under Enemy Property Act to declare property belonging to petitioners to be an enemy property apart from fact that Regional Commissioner having not been appointed as custodian for enemy property in India could not have at his whim instituted proceedings even under Enemy Property Act – It becomes germane to notice fact that quite often, unscrupulous litigants, busybodies meddlesome interlopers masquerading as genuine litigants give a representation and knock doors of this Court by seeking an innocuous prayer of consideration of a representation by issuance of a writ in nature of mandamus – In wake of paucity of time, for a deeper delving into matter, Courts often lend its hands to such litigants by directing consideration of such representation which is misused by such litigants – This case is a classic illustration as to what can become of an innocuous order of consideration of representation – Sixth respondent who was beneficiary of order of consideration of his representation by second respondent, misuses said order by conniving with pliable authorities resulting in impugned illegal proceedings – This leaves court without a shadow of doubt that impugned iis is nothing but a litigation generated with ulterior motive and for extraneous considerations by sixth respondent – Order impugned of Regional commissioner warrants appropriate interference – Impugned Order quashed.
Result :Writ Petition Allowed.
ORDER :
1. Petitioners in this writ petition call in question an order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi whereby the lands belonging to the petitioners are sought to be forfeited in favour of the Government invoking the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Enemy Property Act, 1968.
2. Adumbrated in brief the factual background facts as projected by the petitioners are as follows:
Petitioner No. 1 purchased Sy. No. 1359/P1/6 measuring 9 acres 14 guntas, Sy. No. 1359/P1/7 measuring 3 acres and Sy. No. 1359/P1/8 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas, totally measuring 18 acres 34 guntas; Petitioner No. 2 purchased Sy. No. 1359/P1/4 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas and Sy. No. 1359/P1/5 measuring 12 acres 17 guntas, totally measuring 15 acres 23 guntas; Petitioner No. 3 purchased Sy. No. 1362/3 measuring 10 acres 28 guntas; Petitioner No. 4 purchased Sy. No. 1359/P1/1 measuring 3 acres 3 guntas, Sy. No. 1359/P1/2 measuring 9 acres 20 guntas and Sy. No. 1359/P1/3 measuring 3 acres, totally measuring 15 acres 23 guntas; petitioner No. 5 purchased Sy. No. 1359/P2/2 measuring 12 acres 11 guntas, all situated at Raichur village, Tq. and District: Raichur. All of whom were purchased in terms of the Sale Deed dated 30.07.2011.
3. The brief background to the purchase of the aforesaid properties as pleaded are as follows:
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal, Raichur one of the co-sharer Kazi Mohammed Abdul Rasool Siddique, who was not a party before the Land Tribunal approached this Court in W.P. No. 10155/1976 through his GPA Holder contending that the lands were inam lands and after abolition of inams in terms of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, Khazi Ghulam Dastagir and Kazi Mohammed Abdul Rasool Siddiqui were granted occupancy rights over these very lands and thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 therein had filed their claims in Form No. 7.
5. It was further contended that the lands were originally inam lands and regranted to them. This Court by an order dated 23.01.1980 set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry into the claims of the aforesaid two people who are respondents 4 and 5 therein and other claimants who were claiming occupancy rights over the same lands.
6. After the remand, the Land Tribunal, Raichur again passed an order granting occupancy rights in favour of Harijan Tayappa, Thimmayya and Beerappa who were applicants in Form No. 7 by its order dated 10.02.1982. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.1982, the said Khazi Mahammed Ahmed Rasool Siddique, Sri. Khaji Ghulam Siddique and Sri. Khaji Ghulam Ahmed Dastagir filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 3802/1982, W.P. No. 40174/1982 and W.P. No. 40175/1982. This Court by an order dated 09.04.1997 again remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal by setting aside the order of granting occupancy rights to the applicants aforesaid.
7. After the remand proceedings, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 19.11.2003 rejected the claim of the applicants who had filed Fo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
