A C ANANTHASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Land in dispute in this case is Sy. No. 47 of Panthar Palya, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, measuring 24 acres 37 guntas which is morefully described in the schedule to the writ petition, and hereinafter referred to as' schedule land'. Petitioner is the son of Patel chikkahanumaiah and grandson of Hanumanthappa. It is the case of the petitioner that his grandfather was the tenant of the schedule land, having acquired the same under two lease deeds dated 30-6-1927 and 9-5-1936. Hanumanthappa was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land during his life-time and after his death Patel Chikka Hanumaiah continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. On coming into force of Karnataka (personnel and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 (for short' the Act'), Patel Chikka hanumaiah applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore for grant of occupancy rights of the schedule land. The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, bangalore vide order dated 17-10-1964 ordered for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the schedule land in his favour.

(2.) AFTER the passage of about 6 years from the date of the said order, Patengere Group panchayath, Bangalore South Taluk challenged the said order before the Revenue Appellate tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 1806/1971. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the said appeal in part vide order dated 17-7-1977 and set aside the grant of occupancy fights in favour of Patel chikka Hanumaiah. Against this order, Patel Chikka Hanumaiah filed a writ petition before this court in W. P. No. 1814/1971. This Court by the order dated 26-2-1974 allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter back to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After remand, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the special Deputy Commissioner granting occupancy rights in favour of Patel Chikka Hanumaiah by its order dated 21-4-1977. Aggrieved by the said order, Patel Chikka Hanumaiah filed a Writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 5202/1977 and this Court allowed the writ petition on 8-1-1980 and remitted the matter back to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore for fresh disposal in accordance with law and that the matter is still pending before the Special Deputy commissioner.

(3.) IT is further contended that by A deed of settlement dated 26-12-1974 Chikka Hanumaiah settled the schedule land in favour the petitioner. Chikka Hanumaiah passed away on 3-8-1988. Thus, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. When the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 27-5-1992 for eviction of the petitioner from the schedule land on the ground that he is an unauthorised cultivator of the schedule land. A reply was filed by the petitioner to the said notice. Without considering the said reply and without giving opportunity of being heard, an order was passed on 24-7-1992 directing the petitioner to vacate the schedule land. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 28730/1993. This Court by the order dated 13-1-1999 quashed the said order of the 2nd respondent. Subsequent to the disposal of w. P. No. 28730/1998, the possession of the petitioner in respect of the schedule land property was not disturbed by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that the Petitioner has constructed a farm house, cattle shed and quarters for the labourers by investing huge sums of money on the schedule land. There are fruit yielding coconut trees and grown up silver oak, teak wood, rose wood and other trees and that he has been cultivating the schedule land regularly and growing ragi, pulses and other food grains. Petitioner contends that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. The State Government is not justified in according approval to lease the schedule land to the 3rd respondent as per the Government order dated 7-10-99 and the third respondent in turn leasing the schedule land in favour of the 4th respondent as per the lease deed dated 4-7-2002.