advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, March 29, 2018

the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 = suit for injunction and declaration not maintainable against Univerisity = KLR Act not applicable to University lands and as such certificate of occupancy rights not valid = It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that any land belonging to or held on lease by a University established by law is not subject to the provisions of the KLR Act. The said Act is also not applicable to the land belonging to the Government. In the instant case, the land in question belongs to the University. The registered gift deed dated 12.8.1999 at Annexure P-1 executed by Maharaja of Mysore in favour of the President of India and the lease deed dated 30.11.1970 executed by the President of India in favour of the University clearly establishes the said fact. Therefore, assuming that Rajaiah and Nanjaiah had made applications for grant of occupancy right in respect of the schedule property, the said applications were not maintainable and the order at Annexure P-3 has been passed without jurisdiction. Therefore, the private respondents cannot claim any right in respect of the schedule lands on the basis of the order at Annexure P-3.; non -joinder of necessary parties = neither the University nor the Government of India was made a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Though Mysore Palace was made a party, it has nothing to do with the lands in question - The lands in question did not vest in the State Government on the appointed date, namely, 1.03.1974 as it belongs to University. It is only when the Deputy Commissioner informed the University that some persons are trying to get the records changed in their names on the basis of the order of the Land Tribunal, the University took steps to challenge the said order. The records produced before us clearly establishes that the University has taken steps to challenge the said order diligently thereafter. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and latches. ;appreciation of evidence = The order dated 20.1.2012 of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure R-6 clearly shows that the University is in possession of the said land. It is submitted at the Bar that the said order of the Assistant Commissioner has been challenged by the private respondents before the High Court by filing a writ petition and that the said writ petition is pending. It is also evident that the criminal case filed by the jurisdictional police against the private respondents is also pending before the 3rd JMC Court, Mysore. The concerned courts are requested to dispose of these cases expeditiously in accordance with law. In our view, the High Court was not justified in holding that the private respondents are in possession of the lands in question. They do not have title or are in possession of the said lands. It is also clear that the University is in lawful possession of the said lands.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.170-173 OF 2011
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE ….. APPELLANT
 VERSUS
RAJAIAH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. The appellant-University of Mysore has filed these appeals challenging the
common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, in
RSA Nos.456 of 2000, 457 of 2000, and in W.P. Nos. 1649 of 2001 and 4302 of
2001 dated 25.06.2004, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeals and the
writ petitions.
2. Rajaiah since deceased by his LRs and Chamundi (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘private respondents’) both sons of late Nanjaiah Thavarekatte, filed two suits,
2
being OS No. 20/1995 and OS No.21/1995, on the file of the Second Munsiff and
JMFC at Mysore against the University of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
University’) for injunction restraining the University, their officials, subordinates
or anybody acting on their behalf from interfering with their possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule property in OS No.
20/1995 is as under:-
“Patta land bearing Sy. No.4, situated at
Kurubarahalli, Mysore Taluk, measuring 4.00
acres, and kharab land 4.00 acres of the same Sy.
Number, abutting to the same land, situated at
Kurubarahalli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on –
East : by Main road.
West : By Holla.
South : By Bull road
North : By Private land.”
The suit schedule property in OS No. 21/1995 is as under:-
“Patta land bearing Sy. No.4 measuring 4.00 acres,
situated at Kurubarahalli, Mysore taluk, and land
measuring 4.00 acres of kharab land, situated in
the same number, abutting to the said land, situated
at Kurubarahalli, Mysore, bounded on the
East : By Halla & Property of Rajaiah
West : By property of R.K. Muthu
South : By Bull road.
North : By land of Narayanappa.”
3
3. In O.S. No. 20/95 the case pleaded by the private respondent-Rajaiah is that
he was the tenant of 4 acres of land in Sy. No.4 of Kurubarahalli village, Mysore,
and the landlord was Maharaja of Mysore. On coming into force the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘the KLR Act’) he filed a declaration seeking
occupancy right in respect of the said land. After contest, the Land Tribunal
granted occupancy right in respect of the said land in his favour. He has been in
possession and enjoyment of the said property.
4. The case put forth by the private respondent-Chamundi in OS No.21/95 is
that his father late Nanjaiah was an agricultural tenant in respect of 4 acres of patta
land abutting 4 acres of Kharab land situated in Sy. No.4 of Kurubarahalli village,
Mysore under Maharaja of Mysore. On enforcement of the Act, the schedule
property vested in the Government. His father had filed a declaration seeking
grant of occupancy right in respect of the aforesaid 4 acres of land. After contest,
the occupancy right had been conferred upon his father on 5.6.1981. After the
death of his father the khata of the said property was transferred to his name and
that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
5. In both the suits, private respondents have further contended that the
defendant-University has got no manner of right, title and interest over the said
property and that the officers of the University are interfering with their possession
and enjoyment of said property.
4
6. University filed written statement in both the suits denying the plaint
averments. It was contended that the President of India had executed a deed of
lease dated 30.11.1970 in respect of 22 acres of land in Survey No.4 of
Kurubarahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk bounded on the North by remaining
portion of Sy No.4, South by road, East by road and West by remaining portion of
Serial No.4 of Kurubarahalli in its favour. The lease was for a period of 99 years.
Based on the lease deed, University has been in absolute possession and enjoyment
of the aforesaid land. The suit scheduled property is part and parcel of this land. It
was contended that the private respondents have no manner of right, title or interest
whatsoever in respect of the said property.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed relevant
issues. The parties have let in evidence in support of their respective contentions.
On appreciation of materials on record, the trial court dismissed the suits by
judgment and decree dated 5.2.1998.
8. The private respondents challenged the said judgment and decree by filing
RA Nos.87/98 and 88/98 before the II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Mysore. After hearing, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeals on 6.3.2000
and the suits filed by the private respondents were decreed only insofar as 4 acres
of patta land is concerned. Both the suits in respect of kharab land to an extent of 4
acres each were dismissed.
5
9. University challenged the said decree of the First Appellate Court by filing
RSA No. 456 of 2000 and RSA No.457 of 2000 before the High Court.
10. During the pendency of these appeals, University filed WP No.1649 of 2001
and WP No. 4302 of 2001, challenging the legality and correctness of the order
dated 5.6.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mysore, in KL/RF/4480/79-80 and
4481/79-81 (Annexure P-3) whereby occupancy right in respect of 4 acres of land
each has been granted in favour of the private respondent Rajaiah, and Nanjaiah,
father of the other private respondent Chamundi. It was contended that by a deed
of gift dated 12.8.1965, Maharaja of Mysore had gifted 22 acres of land in Survey
No.4 of Kurubarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, in favour of the
President of India and the President of India leased the said land in favour of
University by executing a lease deed dated 30.11.1970. The land in question did
not belong to the Maharaja of Mysore, when Rajaiah and Nanjaiah had made
applications for grant of occupancy right. Having regard to Section 107 of the KLR
Act, the application filed by Rajaiah and Nanjaiah was not maintainable. It was
further contended that the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy
right was without jurisdiction. It was also contended that the University was not
made party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Mysore Palace was made
a party to the proceedings which has nothing to do with the land in question at the
6
relevant point of time. University has assigned cogent reasons for the delay in
filing the writ petitions challenging the order of the Land Tribunal.
11. The High Court by a common judgment dated 25.6.2004 dismissed the
appeals as well as the writ petitions.
12. The State of Karnataka has filed objections to these appeals on 13.4.2012
contending that the private respondents have managed to create certain bogus
documents to their advantage and produced the same before the civil court so as to
establish their claim over the lands in question contending that the occupancy right
has been granted in their favour. It was further contended that on verification of
the records, it was noticed that K.L.R.M. No. 4480/79 is in respect of Survey
No.42 of Dadadahalli village, Mysore Taluk, which is to an extent of 2 acres and
the occupancy right as per Form No.10 was granted to one Sri Siddaiah, son of
Madaiah. K.L.R.M. No.4481/79 is in respect of Survey No.39 of Dadadahalli
village, Mysore Taluk, which is to an extent of 2 acres, and the occupancy right has
been granted in favour of Sri Shivanna, son of Nanjegowda. On perusal of the
Declaration Register pertaining to Kurubarahalli village, Mysore Taluk, it was
noticed that there is no entry for having filed declaration in Form No.7 by the
private respondents. The K.L.R.F. bearing No. 4480/79 and 4481/79 is in respect
of lands pertaining to Dadadahalli village, Jayapura Hobli which has been
fraudulently made use of by the private respondents, creating Form No.10 in their
7
favour just to claim rights illegally over the land belonging to the University. The
private respondents have not filed any application in Form No.7 in respect of the
suit schedule property as per the register maintained with respect to Kurubarahalli
village. It is also stated that the respondents-plaintiff have not come to the court
with clean hands. Therefore, Tahsildar, Mysore Taluk, has filed a complaint to the
jurisdictional police vide letter dated 23.1.2012 and the jurisdictional police have
filed an FIR before the 3rd JMFC Court, Mysore, wherein the case has been
registered against the LRs of the Rajaiah and Nanjaiah under Sections 465, 466,
468. 471,120(B) and 420 of IPC and Section 192(a) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964.
13. Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior advocate, appearing for the
appellant-University, submits that the title set up by the private respondents over
the subject land is fraudulent and based on forged documents. Rajaiah and
Nanjaiah had not filed applications for grant of occupancy right in respect of the
schedule lands. The applications have been filed by Sri Siddaiah and Sri Shivanna
in respect of some other land in Dadadahalli village. The reference numbers for
applications for another village have been unscrupulously used while forging the
Land Tribunal’s order dated 5.6.1981.
14. Alternatively, it is submitted that Maharaja of Mysore had granted 22 acres
of land in Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk of
8
Kurubarahalli in favour of President of India by a registered gift-deed dated
12.8.1965 (Annexure P-1) and that the said land was leased in favour of the
University by the President of India by a deed of lease dated 30.11.1970 (Annexure
P-2). The land did not belong to the Maharaja of Mysore on the appointed date.
Neither the University nor the Government of India was made party to the
proceedings before the Land Tribunal. But, Mysore Palace was made a party
which has nothing to do with the land when the alleged application was made for
grant of occupancy right. The KLR Act has no application to the lands belonging
to the Government or held on lease by a University having regard to Section 107 of
the said Act.
15. It is further argued that the private respondents are not in possession of the
schedule property. Possession of the land is and has been with the University.
Upon discovery of the fraud perpetuated by the private respondents, the University
by way of I.A Nos.12-15 of 2010 and the State of Karnataka by way of written
statement along with the affidavit, placed the relevant documents on record before
this Court as far back as in the years 2010-12. The private respondents have not
placed on record any rebuttable documents. It is argued that the University has also
assigned justifiable reasons for the delay in approaching the High Court for
quashing the order of the Land Tribunal. The High Court has, however, failed to
accept the said reasons.
9
16. Shri Devadatt Kamat, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for
the respondent-State of Karnataka, has supported the stand taken by the
appellant-University. He has produced the original records in relation to the lands
in question. He has pointed out that the land did not belong to the Mysore Palace
when the applications said to have been made by Rajaiah and Nanjaiah for grant of
occupancy right. The order dated 5.6.1981 at Annexure P-3 is a forged document.
17. Shri Nagmohan Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the private
respondents, supported the judgment of the High Court. It is submitted that the
Land Tribunal has rightly granted the occupancy right in respect of the said lands
in favour of the private respondents. When the appellant-University tried to
interfere with their possession, they filed the suits for injunction which were
decreed by the First Appellate Court. The High Court has rightly dismissed the
second appeal filed by the University. Learned counsel prays for dismissal of
these appeals.
18. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties made at the Bar and carefully perused the materials placed on record.
19. Having regard to the contentions urged, the first question for our
consideration is whether the University is a lessee of the schedule property. It is
clear from the materials placed on record that originally the property in question
belonged to the Maharaja of Mysore. He gifted the said property to the President
10
of India for starting Logopedics Institute in Mysore as per registered gift-deed at
Annexure P-1, dated 12.8.1965. Since the land was not suitable for the said
purpose, Union of India requested the University of Mysore to give some other
land and accordingly the University gave 32 acres of its land. In lieu of the same,
the Union of India leased 22 acres of the said land for 99 years commencing from
30.11.1997 in favour of the University. This is evident from the registered lease
deed at Annexure P-2 dated 30.11.1970. It was a vacant land. The schedule
properties are a part and parcel of the said land. It is thus clear that the University
was the lessee of the said land.
20. This takes us to the next question as to whether Rajaiah and Nanjaiah had
made applications for grant of occupancy right in respect of the schedule lands and
whether the order of the Land Tribunal at Annexure P-3 dated 5.6.1981 is in
respect of the said lands. The University and the State Government have
contended that the contesting respondents have managed to create bogus
documents to their advantage in relation to the land in question. In order to test the
correctness of this submission, we have verified the original records produced by
the learned Additional Advocate General representing the State Government in
relation to the properties in question. The order dated 5.6.1981 of the Land
Tribunal at Annexure P-3 shows that the Land Tribunal passed the order granting
occupancy right at Annexure P-3 in KL/RF/4480/79-80 and 4481/79-80. A perusal
11
of the records reveals that K.L.R.M. No.4480/1979 is in respect of Sy. No.42 of
Dadadahalli village, Mysore Taluk to an extent of 2 acres of land and occupancy
right in the said case was granted to one Sri Siddaiah, son of Madaiah. K.L.R.M.
No.4481/79 is in respect of Sy. No.39 of Dadadahalli village, Mysore Taluk to an
extent of 2 acres of land and the occupancy right in the said case was granted in
favour of Sri Shivanna, son of Nanjegowda. The Declaration Register maintained
by the Land Tribunal pertaining to Kurubarahalli, Mysore Taluk does not contain
any entry for having filed declaration form in Form No.7 by Rajaiah and Nanjaiah.
As noticed above, K.L.R.F. No. 4480/79 and 4481/79 is in respect of lands
belonging to Dadadahalli village, Jayapura Hobli which has been used by Rajaiah
and Nanjaiah for creating Form No.10 in their favour in respect of schedule land.
21. The University has filed IA Nos.12-15 of 2010 narrating the aforesaid facts
along with the supporting documents. The State Government has also given the
aforesaid particulars in their statement of objections. IA Nos. 12-15/2010 have
been filed in the year 2010 and the State Government has filed objections in the
year 2012. Respondents have not filed any rebuttal documents or additional
written statement. It is clear that the order of the Land Tribunal at Annexure P-3 is
a fabricated document.
22. Now let us consider the alternative submission of the University that the
alleged application of Rajaiah and Nanjaiah for grant of occupancy right was not
12
maintainable and the alleged order at Annexure P-3 has been passed without
jurisdiction. Section 44(1) of the KLR Act, 1961 which came into force w.e.f.
1.3.1974 provides for vesting of the land in the State Government. It reads as
under:
“44. Vesting of lands in the State Government.—(1)
All lands held by or in the possession of tenants
(including tenants against whom a decree or order for
eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued)
immediately prior to the date of commencement of the
Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under
leases permitted under Section 5, shall, with effect on and
from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the
State Government.”
23. The KLR Act is not made applicable to certain lands. This is clear from
Section 107 of the Act. The relevant provisions for the purpose of this case are
sub-Section (1)(i) and (iii) of Section 107, which is as under:
“107. Act not to apply to certain lands.—(1) Subject to
the provisions of Section 110, nothing in this Act, except
Section 8, shall apply to lands,—
(i) belonging to Government;
 [(ii) * * * * *];
(iii) belonging to or held on lease by or from a local
authority, an Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
constituted under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce
Marketing Regulation Act, 1966 (Karnataka Act No. 27
of 1966), a University established by law in India, [a
research institution owned or controlled by the State
Government or the Central Government or both] [an
13
Agricultural Research Institution recognised by the State
Government or the Central Government], the Karnataka
Bhoodhan Yagna Board established under the Karnataka
Bhoodhan Yagna Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act No. 34 of
1963).”
24. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that any land belonging to or held on
lease by a University established by law is not subject to the provisions of the KLR
Act. The said Act is also not applicable to the land belonging to the Government.
In the instant case, the land in question belongs to the University. The registered
gift deed dated 12.8.1999 at Annexure P-1 executed by Maharaja of Mysore in
favour of the President of India and the lease deed dated 30.11.1970 executed by
the President of India in favour of the University clearly establishes the said fact.
Therefore, assuming that Rajaiah and Nanjaiah had made applications for grant of
occupancy right in respect of the schedule property, the said applications were not
maintainable and the order at Annexure P-3 has been passed without jurisdiction.
Therefore, the private respondents cannot claim any right in respect of the schedule
lands on the basis of the order at Annexure P-3.
25. There is also no merit in the contention of the learned senior counsel
appearing for the private respondents that the writ petitions are highly belated. As
has been stated above, neither the University nor the Government of India was
made a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. Though Mysore Palace
was made a party, it has nothing to do with the lands in question at the relevant
14
point of time. The lands in question did not vest in the State Government on the
appointed date, namely, 1.03.1974 as it belongs to University. It is only when the
Deputy Commissioner informed the University that some persons are trying to get
the records changed in their names on the basis of the order of the Land Tribunal,
the University took steps to challenge the said order. The records produced before
us clearly establishes that the University has taken steps to challenge the said order
diligently thereafter. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in
dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and latches.
26. The order dated 20.1.2012 of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure R-6
clearly shows that the University is in possession of the said land. It is submitted at
the Bar that the said order of the Assistant Commissioner has been challenged by
the private respondents before the High Court by filing a writ petition and that the
said writ petition is pending. It is also evident that the criminal case filed by the
jurisdictional police against the private respondents is also pending before the 3rd
JMC Court, Mysore. The concerned courts are requested to dispose of these cases
expeditiously in accordance with law.
27. In our view, the High Court was not justified in holding that the private
respondents are in possession of the lands in question. They do not have title or
are in possession of the said lands. It is also clear that the University is in lawful
possession of the said lands. We are further of the view that the High Court was
15
not justified in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the University challenging the
order of the Land Tribunal at Annexure P3. The High Court was also not justified
in dismissing the Regular Second Appeals filed by University.
28. For the afore-stated reasons, the judgment and the decree, of the High Court
in R.S.A Nos. 456/2000 and 457/2000, as also of the First Appellate Court in RA
Nos. 87 and 88 of 1998 are set aside. The judgment and decree dated 5.2.1998
passed by the Trial Court in OS Nos. 20/95 and 21/95 is restored. The order
of the High Court in W.P. Nos.1649/2001 and 4302/2001 is set aside and the writ
petitions filed by the University are allowed. The order dated 5.6.1981 of the
Land Tribunal, Mysore (at Annexure P-3) in No. KL/RF/4480/79-80 and
4481/79-80 is hereby quashed.
29. The appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………J.
 (N.V. RAMANA)
 ……………………………J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
New Delhi;
March 23, 2018.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.