Peddappaiah vs The State of Karnataka and Others

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Though these matters are listed for orders, by consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the writ petitions are taken up for preliminary hearing.

The appellant in these appeals was not a party in W.P. Nos. 8801 to 8802 of 2012. Those writ petitions were disposed of by the Hon''ble Single Judge on April 11, 2012. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellant has sought permission/leave to file W.A. Nos. 870 to 871 of 2013.

Even prior to filing of these appeals, the appellant had filed R.P. Nos. 743 to 751 of 2012 seeking review of the aforesaid order passed in W.P. Nos. 8801 to 8802 of 2012. By order dated October 19, 2012, the review petition was dismissed. Assailing that order W.A. Nos. 1588 to 1592 of 2013 has been filed.

Thus, the first application to be considered in W.A. Nos. 870 to 871 of 2013 is IA No. 1 of 2013 seeking permission to file the appeals.

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein had filed the aforesaid writ petitions seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to consider their representations dated February 8, 2006, May 9, 2007 and June 11, 2007 for restoration of their names in the revenue entries as it was existing on April 29, 1989 in respect of land bearing Survey Nos. 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 19 situated at Chintagummanahalli Village, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District. In respect of those lands, the Land Tribunal had initially passed an order dated April 29, 1989 conferring occupancy rights in favour of the appellant - Peddappaiah. Thereafter, the revenue entries were mutated in his name. The Land Tribunal''s order was assailed in W.P. No. 20513 of 1993 before this Court. The said order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for a fresh adjudication by order dated June 3, 1999, passed by this Court. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein, being aggrieved by the entry of the appellant''s name in the revenue records, had filed R.A. No. 69 of 1999-2000 before the Deputy Commissioner. The said authority, by order dated February 3, 2006, set aside the entry of the appellant''s name in the revenue records and ordered for restoration of their names in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated February 3, 2006, the appellant herein had filed W.P. No. 4774 of 2006.

This Court, by order dated April 11, 2007, held as under:

"If the petitioner and respondents are claiming right over the very same land and which matter is pending before the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the order passed by this court in W. P. 20513/93, the petitioner cannot rely upon the entries made in M.R. No. 5/89-90. Since the entries were made pursuant to the order of the Land Tribunal dated 29.4.1989, the entries prior to the said order are required to be restored and such an order of restoration would be subject to the result of the orders to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties. Liberty is granted to the parties to approach the revenue authorities for change of mutation as ordered earlier by the Deputy Commissioner."

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 admit that the matter regarding the confirmation of the occupancy rights is now pending adjudication before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District as the Land Tribunal presently has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. It is also noted by the Hon''ble Single Judge that while dismissing W.P. No. 4774 of 2006 filed by the appellant herein, this Court affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated February 3, 2006, thereby directing that the names of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein, be entered in the revenue records. This Court has also noted that the entries so recorded would be subject to the final outcome of the tenancy disputes. It is in the aforesaid context that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed applications and sought for re-entry of their names in the revenue records as it stood prior to April 29, 1989, by filing the writ petitions out of which these writ appeals arise. All that the Hon''ble Single Judge has directed is to consider the representations and to give effect to the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in R.A. No. 69 of 1999-2000 dated February 3, 2006. That order is assailed by the appellant herein, who has sought permission to file the appeals. As already noted, the order passed in review against the aforesaid order is also assailed in the other appeals.

Learned advocate for the appellant states that he was not made a party in W.P. Nos. 8801 to 8802 of 2012 and although it was necessary that he should have been heard in the matter before issuing a direction to the revenue authorities to re-enter the names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the revenue records. He submits that the tenancy dispute is at large before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and that there has been no finality in the matter and there is every possibility of the appellant herein being granted occupancy rights. Therefore, the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant is that he ought to have been heard before issuance of any direction to the revenue authorities by the Hon''ble Single Judge.

Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 support the orders passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge. They submit that the order of the Hon''ble Single Judge is by way of interim arrangement. The said order is always subject to the outcome of the tenancy disputes between the parties.

In the writ petitions, all that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 sought was for re-entry of their names in the revenue records in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated February 3, 2006. The Hon''ble Single Judge has merely issued a writ of mandamus to give effect to the order of the Deputy Commissioner and that there is no error in the orders of the Hon''ble Single Judge.

We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates on either sides in the light of the impugned orders and we find that the original order passed in W.P. Nos. 8801 to 8802 of 2012 is only a direction issued to the respondent -authorities to give effect to the order of the Deputy Commissioner in R.A. No. 69 of 1999-2000 dated February 3, 2006. The Hon''ble Single Judge has also noted that the said direction and the re-entry of the names of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the revenue records would be subject to the final outcome of the tenancy dispute. Therefore, the interest of the appellant herein has also been taken care of.

In that view of the matter, we find no error in the order of the Hon''ble Single Judge passed on April 11, 2012. Consequently, the order passed in the review petition dismissing the same, is also just and proper. Hence, we do not find any good ground to allow the interlocutory application giving permission to the appellant to file appeal. The said application is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the said application, the appeals are also dismissed.

Consequently, all other interim applications also stand dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.