Hanumappa (Since Deceased) By His … vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2020
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Hanumappa (Since Deceased) By His … vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2020
Author: Hon’Ble The Justice
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO.62796 OF 2020
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.54675468 OF 2019
Hanumappa (Since Deceased) by His Lrs. & Ors. .…
Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors. …. Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. The respondent No.4 to this petition has filed the
instant application seeking modification/vacation of the
interim order dated 15.02.2019 passed by this Court. Through
the order dated 15.02.2019 this Court had directed the parties
to maintain statusquo as it existed on that date.
Signature Not Verified
2. The facts in brief limited to the consideration of this
Digitally signed by
Rachna
application would indicate that the respondent No.3 herein was
Date: 2020.10.13
15:50:23 IST
Reason:
originally the owner of the property bearing Survey Nos. 91 and
2
92, Chikkagubbi Village. The respondent No.4 herein had
purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dated
26.04.1978. The petitioner herein claiming to be an
agricultural tenant in respect of the said property as also
certain other properties and further claiming to be in
possession and cultivation of the same as on 01.03.1974;
which is the appointed date under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961 had filed an application in Form No. 7
claiming occupancy rights in respect of the property. The Land
Tribunal, Bengaluru, South Taluk considered the same in case
bearing No. LRF(B)CJ;12667475.
3. At the first instance, the Land Tribunal through its
order dated 26.12.1981 allowed the application and granted
the occupancy right in favour of the petitioner herein. The
respondent No.4 herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said
order as he was not made a party to the proceedings before the
Land Tribunal, assailed the order of the Land Tribunal by filing
a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
in Writ Petition No.30301/1982. The High Court through its
order dated 23.09.1997 quashed the order passed the Land
Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after
3
providing opportunity to the respondent No.4. Subsequent
thereto evidence was tendered by the parties and the Land
Tribunal having considered the matter; through a detailed
order dated 16.09.1998 rejected the application dated
31.12.1974 filed by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the
order had assailed the same before the High Court in
W.P.No.30602/1998. The High Court through the order dated
14.10.1998 upheld the order of the Land Tribunal and
dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner filed an intracourt
appeal in W.A.No.1818/2008. The Division Bench, by its order
dated 03.12.2015 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner
thereafter belatedly filed a Review Petition in the year 2017 in
Review Petition No.28/2017 which came to be dismissed
through the order dated 21.06.2017. It is in that circumstance
the petitioner has filed the special leave petition before this
Court. This Court while directing notice to the respondent had
granted the adinterim order of statusquo. The respondent
No.4 having appeared has filed a counteraffidavit to the Writ
Petition and this application seeking modification/vacation of
the interim order.
4
5. In the above background we have heard Mr. Sajan
Poovayya, learned senior counsel for the applicant/respondent
No.4 and Mr.S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent to
this application who is the petitioner in the special leave
petition.
6. The short issue for consideration at this point is as to
whether the petitioner has made out a case for continuation of
the order of statusquo during the pendency of the Special
Leave Petition. As noticed, the claim of the petitioner is that he
was a tenant in cultivation of the property as on 01.03.1974.
Such claim is sought to be justified by contending that his
name is indicated in the cultivator’s Column of the RTC and
that such tenancy was on crop sharing basis. The respondent
No.4 who has filed the instant application has however
disputed the claim. Though the respondent No.4 purchased the
property on 26.04.1978 i.e. subsequent to the appointed date,
the interest in the property as claimed by the respondent No.4
has been accepted by the High Court in Writ Petition
No.30301/1982 through the order dated 23.09.1997 and the
matter had been remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh
5
consideration after providing opportunity to the respondent
No.4/applicant.
7. If that be the position, all that is to be taken note at this
juncture is as to whether the claim of the petitioner that he
was a tenant of the land in question is to be accepted as
unassailable and whether the continuation of the statusquo as
contended by the petitioner in special leave petition merits
consideration. For the limited purpose, a perusal of the order
dated 16.09.1998 passed by the Land Tribunal would prima
facie disclose that a detailed consideration of the evidence and
the analysis of rival contentions has been made. It is in that
light the application in Form No.7 has been rejected. The
contention of Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel is that the RTC
extracts indicates the name of the petitioner as a cultivator in
Column No.12(2) thereof. We notice that the Land Tribunal in
fact has referred to this aspect in detail and has noted that the
RTC extracts from 197172 to 197778 indicates the name of
the respondent No.3 i.e. that the predecessor in title to
respondent No.4 as a cultivator. The Tribunal has also referred
to certain stray entries in the name of the petitioner in the year
197475 and 197576 in the cultivator’s column. In that light
6
the Tribunal has proceeded further to consider the other
evidence available on record and has arrived at the conclusion
that the said entries are not supported by any other evidence,
more particularly the petitioner had not produced any
documentary evidence for having given Rs.3000/ to the
respondent No.3, being 50 per cent of the value of Eucalyptus
trees which was claimed to be sold by him for Rs.6000/ to
establish the claim of tenancy being on crop sharing basis.
Further no other document was produced to indicate that there
was an arrangement on crop sharing basis. Such conclusion
reached by the Land Tribunal has been concurrently upheld by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court in W.P.
No.30602/1998 by the order dated 14.10.1998 and by the
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1818/2008(LR) through the
order dated 03.12.2015. The Review Petition filed against the
same in Review Petition No.28/2017 was also dismissed on
21.06.2017.
8. No doubt Mr. S.N.Bhat, learned counsel sought to
contend that the petitioner had the benefit of the order of
statusquo during the pendency of the proceedings before the
High Court and as such the same benefit be continued. Even if
7
that be the position; as rightly pointed out by Mr. Sajan
Poovayya, learned senior counsel, the Writ Appeal filed by the
petitioner herein in Writ Appeal No.1818/2008(LR) was
dismissed as early as on 03.12.2015 and the interim order if
any had ceased to exist. The instant Special Leave Petition was
filed only in the year 2017 with a delay of 546 days. True it is
that the Review Petition had been filed in the meanwhile.
However, the said Review Petition itself was filed with a delay of
380 days from the date of disposal of the Writ Appeal and in
any event the petitioner herein cannot claim benefit of an
interim order from the date of disposal of the Writ Appeal on
03.12.2015. In such event, though this Court has condoned
the delay, the grant of an order of statusquo at that juncture
was without reference to all these aspects.
9. That apart, the petitioner had also filed a Civil Suit in
O.S. No.333/2017 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District seeking for decree of permanent
injunction. In the suit an application seeking temporary
injunction was also filed but no interim order had been granted
therein. This conduct of the petitioners would also disclose that
the petitioners having not agitated the matter after disposal of
8
the Writ Appeal on 03.12.2015 had begun to reagitate the
matter only when the respondent No.4 was taking steps to
develop the property. In that regard, the documents produced
by respondent No.4 in its reply statement along with an
application would disclose that the respondent No.4 having
entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 27.06.2016
(Annexure A2); the developer was taking further steps for
securing Environment Impact Assessment Certificate and
appropriate registration before the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority. The said proceedings would also indicate that the
property at this point has lost its character as agricultural
property. If that be the position, the petitioner continuing to
cultivate the property or being in possession thereof cannot be
accepted at this juncture to continue the order of statusquo.
Be that as it may, even if on assessment of the entire case
while considering the Special Leave Petition on merits if the
right claimed to be a tenant as on 01.03.1974 is accepted, the
interest of the petitioner would lie in the developed property
and can be appropriately compensated. Thus even on applying
the tripod test, the balance of convenience to vacate the order
of statusquo is in favour of the respondent No.4. Needless to
9
mention that the change in the nature of the land and the
development made therein would therefore remain subject to
the result of the Special Leave Petition.
10. In that view, the order dated 15.02.2019 passed herein
is modified and the direction issued to the parties to maintain
statusquo shall stand vacated. The application is accordingly
allowed with no order as to costs.
..…………………………..CJI.
(S. A. Bobde)
…..…………………………..J.
(A. S. Bopanna)
..…..………………………….J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)
October 13, 2020
New Delhi