Sakamma vs Ramagopal Tibrewala

B.S. Patil, J.—This review petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2012 passed in W.P. No. 39816/2011. Review petitioner had challenged this order before the Division Bench by filing W.A. No. 8595/2012. The said writ appeal was disposed of on 12.11.2013 with the following observations:

"2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri M.N. Madhusudhan for quite some time. During the course of his submission, he has submitted that the instant appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the appellant to file a review petition, for review of the order dated 31.08.2012 passed in W.P. No. 39816/2011 by the learned Single Judge and all the grounds urged in the instant appeal may be left open.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant as stated supra is placed on record.

The instant appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the appellant to file a review petition, if so advised or need arises. All the grounds urged in the writ appeal are" left open".

Contention now urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Judge was in error in holding that Sy. No. 32 in Block 4 of Thirumenahalli Village, Bangalore East Taluk was the land granted during the year 1946 and it was the subject matter of sale vide registered sale deed dated 18.10.1946. It is the contention of the petitioner that land in Sy. No. 32 Block 4 was indeed granted on 19.02.1955 and not prior to 1946 and it is this land that was sold in the year 1946 and therefore, the learned Judge was in error in holding that 1 acre 28 guntas in Sy. No. 32 in Block No. 4 of Thirumenahalli Village, Bangalore East Taluk was the land granted prior to 1946 and it was the said land which was sold. He asserts that the land comprised in Sy. No. 32 in Block No. 4 was granted on 19.02.1955, whereas Sy. No. 32 in Block No. 6 was granted prior to 1946.

On careful perusal of the order under review, I find that it is this very aspect of the matter which has been considered by the learned Single Judge in the order under challenge. Learned Single Judge has repelled this contention and has found that 2 acres of land granted on 19.02.1955 in favour of Hanumanthappa was comprised in Sy. No. 52 (Old No. 32 in Block No. 6) and it is the said land which was acquired by the DRDO and compensation amount was determined. This Court has further referred to the dispute raised before the Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the compensation amount payable in respect of 2 acres of land comprised in Sy. No. 52 and that the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner pertained to the other land measuring 1 acre 28 guntas in Sy. No. 32 in respect whereof grant had been made in favour of Hanumanthappa prior to 1946 and the first sale had taken place on 18.10.1946.

The best document to show which land was sold on 18.10.1946 is the sale deed executed by Hanumanthappa in favour of the purchaser in the first sale. Certified copy of the said sale deed is not produced before the Court. It is not the case pleaded that the sale deed dated 18.10.1946 does not pertain to this land. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 1 acre 28 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 32/4 was not granted in favour of petitioner prior to 1946 but he was only put in possession of the same as Saguvalidar and was cultivating the same and therefore, he could not have sold the said land without there being a grant in his favour. This submission will not in any manner improve the case of the petitioner because even if he was only put in possession of 1 acre 28 guntas of land prior to 1946 without there being a formal order of grant and by way of temporary grant it is immaterial because fact remains that he sold this land by executing a registered sale deed on 18.10.1946 in favour of first purchaser. Therefore, this Court has found that the purchaser having continued to be in possession of the property for more then 30 years has perfected his title by adverse possession. I do not find any illegality in these findings.

Petitioner cannot be permitted to reargue this case in the guise of filing a review petition. Hence, review petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.