Y. Narayana Prabhu vs The Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and the learned Government Pleader.

It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner one Panduranga Prabhu is said to have purchased land bearing Survey No. 250/1 of Yellour village, Udupi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1958 and ever since the purchase, the father of the petitioner was in possession of the land and after him, the present petitioner has been in continuous possession. The RTC relating to the land in question prior to 1.3.1974 and thereafter stood in the name of the petitioner herein. It was never subject matter of any lease in favour of any third-party either by the father of the petitioner or by the petitioner.

The petitioner, in order to effect improvement in the land in question, had approached the Village Accountant for grant of a certified copy of the RTC and it is only then to his surprise, he noticed that the fourth respondent''s name was shown in Column No. 9 of the RTC and in the said RTC, it was mentioned that the fourth respondent had acquired right and title in respect of the land in question. It is thereafter that the petitioner was constrained to make further inquiries with the Tahsildar, to ascertain the manner in which the name of the fourth respondent was reflected in the RTC and it is then he learnt that the Land Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights in favour of the said respondent. The petitioner had even approached the Land Tribunal and obtained the certified copies of the orders of the Tribunal dated 8.7.1981, whereby occupancy rights have been conferred in favour of respondents 3 and 4 herein. It is also found that there was no reference to the above said land in the order of the Land Tribunal. The entries in the RTC were therefore misleading and was without any basis.

It transpires that the order of the Tribunal had been challenged in appeal by the original claimant before the appellate authority and in the order passed by the said appellate authority, it was again indicated that the fourth respondent had been conferred the occupancy rights relating to land bearing survey No. 250/1 measuring 0.39 cents of Yellour village. Therefore, the petitioner had cross-checked with the copy of Form No. 7 filed by the mother of respondents No. 3 and 4 herein. There was no claim relating to land bearing Survey No. 250/1 in the said Form No. 7 and it was incorrectly indicated that one Kolla Shedthi was shown the landlord as per Form No. 7 and it was therefore evident that the very basis of the claim was not with reference to the true owner of the land namely, the father of the petitioner and after him, the petitioner insofar as the land bearing Survey No. 250/1 is concerned. It is by mischievous inclusion in the appeal and in the order passed by the appellate authority that the land in question has been shown, in respect of which occupancy rights are said to have been conferred in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4. It is this illegality which is sought to be emphasized and highlighted in the petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the absence of any claim made in respect of the land and in the absence of notice to the true owners of the land, the entire proceedings conferring occupancy rights in favour of the respondents would be a nullity in the eye of law and would have to be set at naught.

Incidentally, the learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of respondent No. 3 would submit that he has no claim over the land in question, but would also point out that even the petitioner''s claim may not survive for consideration for the reason that the land in question has been acquired under a compulsory acquisition proceedings for the purpose of setting up Udupi Power Project and hence it is no longer capable of cultivation by the petitioner himself and hence, the very petition is rendered infructuous.

By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that even if the land has been acquired for any public benefit, the fact remains that the owner or the occupant of the land would be entitled to compensation and if the order pertaining to land bearing Survey No. 250/1 which is under challenge in the present proceedings is allowed to stand, it is the fourth respondent, who would benefit by receiving the compensation in respect of the land, on the basis of the said order and the petitioner would be illegally deprived of the benefit of his land as the true owner. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that though the Land Tribunal had not conferred any occupancy rights in respect of the land in Survey No. 250/1, it is by a mischievous act of the claimant, who had included the land in the appeal preferred before the appellate authority, that the appellate authority had conferred occupancy rights in respect of the said land as well, though it was never subject matter of Form No. 7 filed by him.

Consequently, on the face of it, as endorsed by the learned Government Advocate, Form No. 7 which is found in the record, does not disclose that there was a claim in respect of Survey No. 250/1 nor does the record disclose that any notice was served on the petitioner or his father before the proceedings were initiated. In fact, the order of the Tribunal does not have any reference to land, bearing survey No. 250/1 nor the present petitioner or his father. It is only in the order of the appellate authority that the land in Survey No. 250/1 has been included without reference to either the petitioner or his father. Therefore, the inclusion is wholly illegal and is a nullity and would have to be set at naught.

Consequently, the order of the appellate authority insofar as it pertains to the land bearing survey No. 250/1 is quashed. The petition stands disposed of in terms as above.

The application in I.A.I/2014 stands disposed of.