AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—The order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as the "Tribunal") passed in Appeal Nos. 1338/2005 and 1339/2005 dated 16/04/2012 as well as the order of the first- respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, dated 24/05/2003 in Case No. LND(NA)CR. 89/2002-03, are assailed in these writ petitions. As these orders are common to both the petitioners, these writ petitions have been clubbed together and are heard and disposed of by this common order. The petitioner in W.P. No. 18083/2012 is a Charitable Trust and represented by its Secretary while the petitioner in W.P. 20420/2012 is a Religious Trust, represented by its convener.
The petitioner in W.P. No. 18083/2012 has stated that land bearing Sy. No. 8 at Mavallipura village, Hesaraghatta Holbi, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 40 Acres was granted in favour of the petitioner by an order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, in Case No. RC.2314/64 dated 05/03/1966 under the provisions of the Mysore Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1955. It is further stated that subsequently, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. When the matter stood thus on 24/05/2003, an extent of 100 Acres in Sy. No. 8 was leased to respondent No. 1 - BBMP, including petitioner''s land to an extent of 40 Acres for the purpose of dumping and processing of garbage from Bangalore City. A copy of the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner is at Annexure "E". That order was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in Appeal No. 1338/2005.
The petitioner in W.P. No. 20420/2012 has stated that an extent of 40 Acres of land in Sy. No. 8 of Mavallipura village, Hesaraghatta Holbi, Bangalore North Taluk was granted to petitioner by order dated 06/03/1965 by the then Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bangalore. It is stated that subsequently, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. That this portion of the land which had granted to the petitioner was also leased to the respondent No. 2 - BBMP, by virtue of Annexure "D" dated 25/04/2003. That order was assailed by this petitioner also before the tribunal.
Thus both the petitioners assailed the order of lease dated 25/04/2003 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal clubbed both the matters together and by an order dated 16/04/2012, dismissed the appeals. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal as well as that of the first respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners have filed their respective writ petitions.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the first respondent and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - BBMP and perused the material on record, including the documents produced along with the applications for documents, which have been allowed during the course of these writ petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order of the Deputy Commissioner. He has stated that the Tribunal has recorded that as no certified copy of the order of re-grant has been produced by the petitioners and that the other documents which were produced by the petitioners herein were only the photocopies and the originals were not produced, the same were not believed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal infact, has recorded that the photocopies do not inspire any confidence. Therefore, considering only the photocopies of the documents produced by the petitioners and without looking into the original records of the Government, the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the documents produced by the petitioners are not true and genuine documents. As a result, the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner has been upheld and the right, title and interest of the petitioners vis-�-vis their respective extent of land in Sy. No. 8 have been negatived. He also contended that as the petitioners are the grantees of their respective extents in Sy. No. 8 of Mavallipura village, Hesaraghatta Holbi, Bangalore North Taluk, the Commissioner could not have ordered for lease of their lands to the BBMP for the purpose of dumping and processing garbage from Bangalore City. In this context, the submission is that the Deputy Commissioner could not have treated the lands in question as gomal lands and on that premise, leased the lands to the respondent No. 2 for a period of thirty years. It was contended that in the absence of the petitioners being notified prior to the passing of the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal ought to have been condoned. He therefore contended that the impugned orders be quashed and the matters be re-considered having regard to the documents filed by the petitioners.
Learned Govt. Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - BBMP, however, vehemently supported the impugned orders and contended that when the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the photocopies of the documents produced by the deceased do not inspire the confidence and no reason has been assigned as to why the certified or the originals of the documents which are now sought to be produced before- this Court were not produced before the Tribunal by the petitioners. They therefore submitted that there is not merit in these writ petitions.
On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is noted that the Tribunal had raised two questions for its consideration. One was with regard to the delay in filing the appeals and the second, was with regard to the legality of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, impugned in the appeals. On the point regarding delay in filing the appeals, the Tribunal stated that as there was no explanation with regard to the delay and filing the appeals belatedly, it could not condone the same and therefore, the appeals were prima facie dismissed on the point of limitation. However, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the case of the petitioners herein on merits. While doing so, it categorically remarked that certified copy of the orders of grant were not produced by the petitioner. All documents which had been produced by the petitioners before the Tribunal were photocopies (Xerox copies). The Tribunal has opined that Xerox copies do not inspire any confidence. The list of documents produced by the petitioners before the Tribunal are also extracted in Para 2 of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also noted that in respect of certain small extents of land in Sy. No. 8 at Mavallipura village, Hesaraghatta, Holbi, Bangalore North Taluk, certain other persons are in actual possession as Anubhavdars. It has also considered the sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, Bangalore North Taluk and other documents which were on record. But the Tribunal did not have an opportunity of considering the certified copies of the grant produced by the petitioners in these writ petitions. If at all, there were grants made by the then Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in March 1966, as is claimed by the petitioners therein, then there ought to have been records to that effect maintained by the Government. In this context, it is noted that the Government has not produced any records with regard to the grants said to have been made in the year 1966. In the absence of the certified copies of the orders of grant and in the absence of original records to that effect submitted by the Government before the Tribunal, virtually, the Tribunal was not in a position to comprehensively consider the case of the petitioners. On the other hand, by merely looking into the photocopies of the documents produced by the petitioners, the Tribunal has stated that they do not inspire any confidence. Such a conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal cannot also be faulted for the simple reason that there were no certified copies of the records or orders and there were no original records before the Tribunal particularly, with regard to the orders of grant made in March 1966. In that view of the matter and in order to meet the ends of justice, so as to give both the petitioners as well as the State Government, an opportunity to place all the original records or certified copies of the same before the Tribunal, the impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the appeals. It is needless to observe that the petitioners as well as the Government would make use of the opportunity now granted to them to produce the original records or certified copies of the orders relied upon by them before the Tribunal, so that on consideration of the same, the legality of the order of the Deputy Commissioner could be considered afresh.
It is also noted that the appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay in approaching the Court. But having regard to the nature of the controversy between the parties and the claim made by the petitioners herein, as well as the contention of the petitioners that they ought to have been notified by the first respondent prior to passing of the impugned order of leasing the lands in favour of the respondent No. 2, the question of delay would have to be considered along with the merits of the case in as much as the justification of the claim made by the petitioners herein, would have a bearing on the legality of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. If the petitioners are able to establish that they were indeed granted the lands in question and their lands were leased by the first respondent to the second respondent without notifying the petitioners herein, then that is a good ground to condone the delay.
In that view of the matter, the Tribunal is directed to keep open the question of delay and to consider the same, while considering the case of the parties on merits.
Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 state that they would appear before the tribunal on 06/01/2014, without insisting on a fresh notice from the Tribunal. They may do so on the said date. The Tribunal is directed to give an opportunity to the parties to produce the original records or certified copies of the documents to both sides, to consider the same in accordance with law and then, to opine on the legality of the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner as well as on delay in approaching the Tribunal.
Having regard to the previous order of this Court dated 02/03/2012 in W.P. Nos. 6410/2012 and 6411/2012 (Annexure "E"), the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeals in an expeditious manner.
The writ petitions are accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Office is directed to return the certified copies of the documents produced by the petitioners herein, subject to filing of true copies of the same for the purpose of record.