IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 53* DAY OF JUNE 2008
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT E
wmr PE'I'I'l'ION NO.16502/2Q05(LI§)'- 1 A
BETWEEN :
1 VAIJANAM mo
S/QMADHAVRAO PATIL - V .
AGED ABOUT 49YEARS
occ: AGRICULTURE
R/O JYAN'I'H1,'rQ BHl=§LKI;?" _ _ '
DISTBIDAR. .- "
2 SHIVARAYA ....
S/0.APIf*A RAO~?,A3'iL':_ _
AGED ABOUT 55«¢EERs _ 'V
occ; AGRICULTURE'.
R/O SHAMBELLI TELU'x'A:mA9
DIS'l'.BIDAR"~, ' -
3 BABUFRAO' ..... ..
"3/AO"BHE»EMRA0 PATI
AGE.'--I)_ A5011'? Essmans
00¢: fiG.RiCUL'P13R.E
R/_O' £§§iAii'4!2»_kKAI3"£'ALUK BHALKI
DIST. BIDAR' ~ ;_
E ',As1~1oK.. ,,
" " -~ .. " -- ._ S/AoT.BHI1s.g.. RAG PATIL
' .fAGEI)._ABOU'I' 42 YEARS
'Qcc; AGRICULTURE
we CHIMAKAD, TQ. BIDAR
" 133533210'? BIDAR
CHANNAPPA
" S/0.HAWAG§ RAG PATH.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
occ: AGRICULTURE
R/O GAD! LEPPALGA
{:1
(A)
(B)
{ A
T " 'BUSINESS, R/C) BIDAR.
TALUK BHALKI
DES'? BEDAR
KALAWATI
W/O MANIKRAO PATIL
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS I
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
MEDICAL PRACFYFIONER
R/O BAGDAL 'I'Q BIDAR
DIST BIDAR
GURUMATH RAO .
s/0 HAWAGI RAO PATIL' _ ._ .
SINCE DEAD BY ms ms ~ *
SI-HVAKUMAR
S/0GURUMATHǤ?A0.PAT1L_. ~ :
AGEDABOUT2:3YiEiARS_ _ '
occ: AGRIC!J'L'E'"U.R'E '
R/O GAD§HIPPAi§_Gg;I. " » _ '_ "
TQ IBHALBZL. DIs.T.si--DAR '
SA'I'HISH ._ V V. _ ' -
s/0 GUR¥JMA'i'I-i .RAc>"~:.=A'i'3_;_.
AGED ABOUT22 YEARS' _
occ: AGRICULTURE-__ ' *
R/O GFxDIHIPPARGA'
, Q_ mgaapgz, DIST.i§IDA.R.v
3? ED AZiM.(}§D§.N
D_S]'0_S"£ED._§SMAiL'.,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
oer): AGRECULTURE
ANDMEDHAMC
'DR/O BiDAR FROPER
..}M"A &'1'I'AR ABID
- 'SIOM-LA. KI-IADER
. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OGC: AGRICULUTRE AND
.. .PE'I'I'lImERS
(By Sri.B.C.Muddappa, Adv.)
AND :
I THE STATE OF' KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE I
2 THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BIDAR TALUK, BIDAR =
DIST BIDAI2, REPRESENTED
BY ITS CHAIRMAN -
THE ASSISTANT' .
COMMISSIONER BIDAR «. 5
3 THE TAHASILDAR _ .
BIEAR TALUK, BIEZIAR --
DIS'I'.BIDAR I
4 sM'r.sYEDA'xsI_AT00'r; *
mo SYED s;iAHA MA.EiAMO{OD
HUSSAl--N--,-AGED AE3;_0U'l'-75.YEA'RS....
0-cc; IaIousI::;~II::3LD,I:I.2/o NOORKHAN
TALIM;v..CH.flTAPUR',-»BEDAF-2, I ...RESPONDEN'I'S
(By sri.S';Z,A.Kfim§é:§hi,.:_'AGA for R1 to R3,
.3ri:P.S.'Ee£a11ju11ath 85
'-'.S1ji:H._C.S1IivaraE1lJ, Advs. for R4)
0 0
'fI1Ié WEI? I>I§ifI°IfI€IoN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 0:» THE CQNSBITUTION or INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
VQUASH T131; ORDER m'.9-5.2005 PASSED BY R-2 VIBE ANNII'.
THIS V9'RI'F PETYFION comma on FOR HEARING, THIS
V 'i._"'DEs'f;'1'HE"COUi?'T MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are questioning the order
by the 2116′ respondent, a copy of which is _
Anncxure ‘T’ and also has soughtflmfor
mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 to
in the Record of Rights mfiofigg Sy.I€oV}6j?:/_V1VVV 5
measuring 5 acres 8 guntas of
Bidar, District Bidar, Which”io’ of the
order produced at An§1oxuro- “”‘i””».– if: ,, d K
2. Thefaczts i’xV’fi*r;isf:.1._1_:A:’a1fc’:’ for the disposal of
{his writ petitidon s=;1mm:’ as follows:
The” is Sy.No.67, which measures
total. It is an Inam land. One
“i3ieg11m was a tenant of the said
application for gent of occupancy
Vvfhc Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams)
an extent of 6 acms and 17 guntas was
in her favour. The nenaaining extant of 12 acres %
{v
and odd also was wanted in favour
Smt.Waheedunnisa Begum pursuant to ‘t E _
dated 20.02.1962. The 46: respondettt v’:”
certain interest questions the order
Special Deputy Commissioner
Mysore Revenue Appellate
appeal was allowed and the Special
Deputy Commissiotzetf. “order at
Annexure ‘C’, for
oonfxrmatiotl V ” was rejected.
1ncidentan§, it the said order has
become final.’
3. to ‘E’ dated 11.10.1965,
sold the entire extent of 18
17′-4.gtu;tas};1iTfavour of one John Thomas. The said’
nisa Begum re-purchased the entire
Sy.No.67 pursuant to a sale deed dated
‘VT(}.’§i3u;’1-»1.*i971, a copy of which is produced at Annexure
Incidentally, it is to be noticed that pursuant to
HAI1nexure ‘G’ dated 23.03.1978 Smtwaheedimnisa fl
I
.{
-5-
Begum, respondent No.4-Saida Khatoon and
Sagrunnissa Begum sold an extent of 8 acres 15 E _
in favour of one Smt. Uma Bai, W/oeagoji. Am:5«:; _ V’: d
have also sold an extent of 6 acres
Housing Co-operative Society a
dated 24.05.1977, copy of at
Axmexure ‘H’. All the 2 acres 1
gunta in favour of Abdul
Gaffar pursuapt deed dated
23.03. 1973, at Annexure ‘J’.
Another exfent– of was sold by the three
i.e., ‘respondent No.4 and
of one Mohd.Abdu1 Samad
Siddidiie .. .._to a registered sale deed dated
e.__23.03.1fl9’78, erhich is produced at Annexure ‘K’.
_ have purchased an extent of 5 acres 8
I dpursuant to a registered sale deed dated
dec’cToc9′,*o9.d;:.93s from Smt.Uma Bai, w’/o.Ieajoj1, copy of
is produced at Annexure ‘P’. //g
X
4. Respondent No.4 filed an applicatwn for
of oocupaxmy rights in Farm Na. 1 undw Certain A’ %
Abolition Act, 1977 to the extent ca’ 5 acrw
The said applimtion is datw f} é; – T
which is produced at Ammxure ‘S’.- 3
is filed by respondent Na’! in
77A of the Karnataka Land 1998.
The Land Tribunai up” Kiri.’ the 4*!’
mspondmt fer Foam No. 1
‘ and held mg }is entitled fur
confiz-matiim oi’ .§:~ig11t.fi$. Heme, ganted the
said appiicaf.ii:13_.” pamed by tm Land
The said order is mapugaed
:vLA;§a§f.B.C.Muddappa and Mxushivaramu,
_ cbugisel a%1’i13g=- for the contostmg- ‘ – mam’ ‘
fiat these are the undisputed facts.
_ 6. Mr.B.C.Mudda§m, learned «comma! appearing
fur the pet.itionm’wou-id sabmit that the appiimfion flied
@»
.3-
by respondent No.4 in Form No.1 under Section 11′
Certam Inams Abolition Act is barred by A’
inasmuch as the last date for fxlingof «V
was 31.03.1991. He further su1V)m.it§’.f;’1i-ofirl
the application in Form tzndof
cannot be considered by the as
under Section 77A of Deputy
Commissioner to
adjudicate the in Form No. 7A.
He rurmer sub1§;::§ %%or Rights for the
relevant is ix; the name
of the ‘He submits that the 4″!
iiioviug soidher interest in Sy.No.67 could
not ‘h.a§ro in Form No.7A. He further
of the petitioner in Form No.1 is
‘ ” res judicata inasmuch as her claim for
right was rejected earlier.
Mr.H.C.S’hivaramu, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.4 submits that a suit was filed in
O.S.No.164/2000 for declaration of title and all other
-19 _
of the petitioners appear in the Record of Rights. .
Having regard to the fact that the petitioners axe
interested persons, they ought to have hem’; it ~
the proceedings. In fact the only contesting party i it it
the Land Tribunal was State. Indeed 7-1′
ought to have been made parties
they should have been notified ;bei’o’t’e”‘th_e ifiipugned
order was passed. Thus, is in
violation of the ;Prm’ gazes ofnatuma jf
9. In __ (.’ourt would have set-
aside the order the and remitted the
matter to. LaI1i:i– for fresh disposal, but
would be served by remitting
the Tribunal for the following
reasons:
< It tiotwsin dispute that the Land in question is an
— It is to be noticed that at one point of time,
h ‘ Begum claimed that she is a tenant
the entire extent. Initially her claim was granted by
I
the Special Deputy Commissioner, (Inams) pursuant to w
/..’
two orders. But however, the said onder was quest:’:onedg’–.__
by the 4&1 respondent and the Revenue
Tribunal set-aside the order and remitting the M
After remand, the claim of the 4*?”
rejected, which has attained a
necessarily mean that her claim k
rights is rejected
Annexure ‘C’. What; is ‘die enthe
extent of land hag be in its
entirety, but to various sale
deeds, wmchare Indeed, it is to be
noticed ‘.’3tS-. Veespondent has joined
BeguAAii*e;s”‘wefl as Saglrrunisa Begum in
deeds on various occasions. In so far
the is concerned, the petitioner has
‘ ” extent of 5 acres 8 guntas from Smt.Uma
to a registered sale deed dated
“e.€}S3.99.._.i988.
,1-gspondent No.4 and Sagirunnisa Begum sold an extet1tfl(
10. In the first instance, Waheedunnisa Begum,
9″
of 8 acres 15 guntas on 23.03.1978 and the
have purchased a porfion of it in the year 1988. It is A’
be noticed that the 4th respondent is a
has joined the mmaining two in ‘V:
Whatever title she had in the
transferred in favour of the
that the 4’-“h respondent can
executing the sale iI1:.fave-£1: Bai, no
records are ‘She
continued which would
entitle her {to ‘rights under Certain
Inams Abo1itioz’1,g;ct. f:9.L*!:fi_’1Wc5sponde11t No.4 has lost
the sale deed in favour of
11e”‘~..The ‘ question would be whether the
wirlrlich is filed under Secfion 11 of
Certain {name Aboliton Act, 1977 is within
appreciate this eozntention Section 11 of the
is required to be looked into. Section 1} of the Act
of 1977 would read as under: /fl
/4’,
-13..
“Procedure for registration as an
occtqmnt~–(1)Everyperscn entitledtcbe _
registered as an occupant under this Act
constituted under the Karwnatalieezgna .; .
Reform Aa, 1961 on or before (sis; e %
1984). Such application she£§”~£2e
ofby the Tribunal as grit is
madeunderthe _
(Provided that
inamdar héjI_e!er.v..of._1eij;.mé’:£cf”ir:am
shall er before
the 31st shau
be decided key em, qfter issuing
* »– the concerned
‘ held in manner as may be
A e
Section 11 would indicate that
:v..i:c_itial1y, lest date for filing of the application in
to claim occupancy right under the said Act
. March 1984. Thexeatter, the time was being
” -extended and finally, the last date to file the application
fl
was on or before 31′” March 1991. Incidentally, it is
be noticed that if an application is filed -.
stipulated time, the same is requJred’ to be V’ M
by the Land Tribunal having
contained under the Land Reforms A¢t;, aut
the question is whether the app1i§a{i5onVVffléd-V. ‘
respondent is within for
grant of fled on
26.06.1998. A clearly
indicate Certain
Inams K Rale 5 of the Rules,
which Véiccfion 1 1 of the Act. A
mIf’11sa1v,. the amen is dated 26.06.1998
the said application is filed beyond
file under Section 11 of the
_ the said application is beyond time
»r,:kVn’11dA termed as barred by statute.
In so far as Form No.7A is conccmcd, which is
under Sub–Rule(l) of Rule 26(c) and under Section
’77A of the Act, it is to be noticed that the Land Tribunal
fir
-15..
does not have jurisdiction to entertain the said:
application. Incidentally, it is to be noticed ft’: {T _
applicafion, which is sought to be u
Land Tribunal is the one which is
No.1. Be that as it may,
filed under Section 77A or me tLaed*e¢-minus
Act, I am of the View has no
jurisdiction to
13. that both the
contentionist counsel for the
petitioner; tov’ inamuch as the
is statutory period and the 41%
__lost all her rights pmeuant to the
e.___order’ Special Deputy Commissioner
under {name a h’ Aboliton Act and that having aIta1ned’
she having joined Waheedunnisa Begum
H ‘sa Begum in executing the sale deed in
of the petitioner’s vendor, I am of the View that
the impugmd order passed by the Land Tribunal at
J
-15..
Annexure ‘T’ cannot be sustained. Consequently,
following order is passed:
Petition stands allowed.
Annexure “1” stands quashed.
14. Rule is issued and made’ a1¥§ol}1te;'”
15. Mr.s.z.A.Khur¢sh:i, ‘ Q Addifional
Government is
permitted to tile four weeks.