BEFORE THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
APPEAL NO /2017
BETWEEN:
S.ABC
S/o XYZ
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation: Fish Merchant
R/o RR Colony, Raichur ...APPELLANT
A N D:
Deputy Commissioner ,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
Raichur …RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 49 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964.
Appellant most respectfully submits as under:
- The address of the appellant for the purpose of service of court notice, summons etc., from this Hon’ble Court is that of , Advocate Bangalore -560 080.
- The address of the respondent for similar purpose is as shown in the above cause title.
III. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26/06/2014 passed in No.ALN/153/202-13 by the respondent herein thereby canceling the order of conversion dated 04/01/2014 from Agricultural to Non Agricultural purposes in respect of the land measuring 3 Acres 20 Guntas in Sy.No.1428/2; the appellant is presenting the above memorandum of appeal on the following facts and grounds;
- FACTS OF THE CASE
- Appellant had acquired agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 00/2, situated at Raichur village limits, District Raichur measuring in all 3 Acres 32 Guntas (for short `said land`) in terms of registered Deed of Sale dated 15/02/2011 executed by its erstwhile owner 1. Smt. POQ 2. Smt.OPQ 3. Smt. QPR 4. Smt. PQR and 5. Smt. RPQ for valuable consideration. Copy of registered Deed of Sale dated 15/02/2011 is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-A. Pursuant to the registered Deed of Sale the name of the appellant was entered into in all the revenue records as owner in possession of the land in question. Copy of the mutation proceedings in MR No.00/2011-12 and RTC extracts showing the name of the appellant as owner of the land in question is herewith produced as ANNEXURE B and C respectively. That, all the while from the date of the sale deed in his favour appellant has been in peaceful possession of the land in question.
- It is now submitted that the names of the erstwhile owners of the property (Vendors of the Appellant) were entered as owners in possession of the schedule property as early as in the year 1983-84 but, thereafter since the name of Police Department came to be entered in column No 12(2) of the Pahani; the vendors of the Appellant filed Appeal under section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur for deletion of the same on the ground that, they are the owners in possession of the schedule property and as such their names to be entered in column 12(2) of the Pahani. The same was registered as Appeal No.00/2009-10. That, respondent No 4 herein was party to the said proceedings.
- It is submitted that, the in the said proceedings before the third respondent, the Police authorities contended that the land was in their possession and that the entries in Column No.12(2) showing the name of the Police Department was correct and proper. By Order dated 21-9-2010, the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur allowed the appeal filed by the vendors of the Appellant inter-alia holding that the entries in Column No.12(2) in the name of the Police authorities were illegal and invalid since the same were made without any basis or records. It is relevant to state that even in those proceedings, the police authorities failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their right over the land in question. Under these circumstances, it was held that since the land was absolutely owned and possessed by the Appellant’s vendors, the entries in Column No.12(2) were liable to be restored to the names of the Appellant’s vendors. Copy of the said Order is produced as Annexure-D. Pursuant to the said Order, the Appellant’s vendors absolute right, title, interest and possession over the land in question was upheld.
- It is submitted that pursuant to the purchase of the said land the appellant with an intention to develop the said land for the formation of a residential layout applied for conversion of the said land from Agricultural to Non Agricultural purposes. It is further submitted that the respondent after obtaining all the necessary reports and after considering the same was pleased to pass the conversion order dated 04/01/2014 in respect of the said land by collecting the required conversion charges. Copy of the report of the Tahsildar and the conversion order is herewith produced and marked as Annexure E & F respectively .
- It is submitted that, pursuant to the conversion order being passed by the respondent in respect of the said land the, appellant as intended has started developing the said property for the purpose of making a residential layout.
- When, things stood thus It is submitted that it appears that one OPT, Secretary, Hyderabad Karnataka Dalit Sangharsha Samiti has made representation dated 31/05/2014 and 05/06/2014 alleging that the land in question was part of the Suit No 00/1974 and that as per the compromise entered thereat an extent of 2.31 Acres belongs to the government; that the original owners and the purchaser without disclosing the same to the office has got the said land ordered for Conversion and as such, the same needs to be cancelled.
- It is submitted that the respondent after looking into the Decree passed in O.S.No00/1974 got issued a show cause notice to the Appellant as to why the order of conversion granted should not be cancelled; the appellant in response to the same filed his objections contending that its erstwhile owners were the absolute owners of the entire extent and that the decree in O.S. No 00/1974 does not come in the way of their ownership. Certified copies of the case papers in O.S.No00/1974 are herewith produced and marked as Copy of ANNEXURE G
- It is submitted that the second respondent without looking in his proper perspective and considering the objections ad without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to substantiate his ownership over the said property has passed the impugned order thereby cancelling the order of conversion dated 04/01/2014 passed in respect of the schedule property. Certified copy of the said impugned order is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE
- The appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26/06/2014 at Annexure H is preferring this appeal on the following amongst other grounds, which are urged in the alternative and without prejudice to each other.
GROUNDS
- Impugned order is passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Appellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order which has the effect of taking away valuable immovable property of appellant thus causing serious prejudice to the appellant .
- By a mere reading of the impugned order it cannot be made out as to under what provision of Law has the impugned order been passed by the second respondent.
- Impugned order is based on a representation made by one OPT, Secretary, Hyderabad Karnataka Dalit Sangharsha Samithi who has no locus to question the ownership of the appellant over the said property and that too by way of a representation. It is clear from the impugned order that certain report from the Tahsildar, Raichur and Assistant Commissioner, Raichur were obtained by the respondent herein which, copy of the reports been not furnished to the appellant till date. Further, a mere reading of the impugned order makes it absolutely clear that the same is passed without proper application of ones mind to the matter on hand.
- The impugned order passed by the respondent holding that the vendors of the appellant had no title over the land in question is vitiated on the ground that the respondent did not have jurisdiction or authority of Law to go into the question of title while passing the impugned order. Particularly when there was no dispute or claim by anyone including the government with regard to the title of the appellant and his vendors.
- That, the Respondent further erred in holding that the vendors of the Appellant had admitted in O.S.00/1974 stating that out of the total extent of 3 Acres 32 Guntas, 2 Acres 31 Gunta belonged to the government and accordingly, the compromise decree dated 21/07/1977 passed in the said suit was only in respect of 1 Acre 1 Gunta and not 3 Acres 32 Guntas. In this context, the respondent has misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued the said material on record in relation to the said suit and this has resulted in erroneous conclusion while passing the impugned order. A mere reading of compromise petition produced at Annexure G makes it amply clear that nowhere to the said effect has been stated in the said compromise petition.
- That, respondent further erred in holding that the appellant’s vendors did not have right to sell 3 Acres 32 Guntas in favour of the appellant and that the said sale deed dated 5/02/2011 was illegal and contrary to Law. In this context, the 2nd respondent failed to appreciate that he did not have jurisdiction or authority of Law to examine the Title of the appellant and his vendors over the land in question particularly when the said compromise decree was more than 35 years old and had been accepted and acted upon by all the parties including the respondents herein who had carried out necessary revenue entries initially in the names of the Vendors of the appellant and thereafter in the name of this appellant prior to passing the order of conversion dated 04/01/2014 in favor of the appellant herein.
- The respondent erred in placing reliance upon the alleged report of Assistant Commissioner, Raichur for the purpose of passing the impugned order. In this context, the respondent completely failed to appreciate that the very Assistant Commissioner had earlier in the proceedings under section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, had upheld the contention of the appellant’s vendor and restored the revenue entries into their names prior to they selling the same in favour of the appellant.
- The impugned order is on the face of it is unsustainable and the same needs to be set aside at the hands of this Hon`ble Court.
- Viewed from any angle, the impugned order being in v otherwise without reference to the facts and the Law is unsustainable in law.
PRAYER
Wherefore,
- it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order no. No.ALN/153/202-13 dated 26.06.2014 passed by Respondent vide Annexure-H to appeal proceedings and also all the further proceedings pursuant thereto;
- Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.
Bangalore
Date Advocate for the Appellant.
VERIFICATION
I, ABC , the appellant herein, do hereby declare that what is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Date:
Bangalore
BEFORE THE KARNTATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
APPEAL NO /2014
BETWEEN
ABC … Appellant
And:
Deputy Commissioner, Raichur … Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, ABC son of XYZ, aged 59 years, R/o RR Colony, Ashapur Road, Raichur, now in Bangalore do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
- I am the Appellant in the above case and I, am fully conversant with the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing this affidavit.
- The statements made in Paragraphs 1 to in the accompanying Appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information and belief.
- I state that Annexure-A to H are the true copies of the original
Bangalore,
Date: DEPONENT
Identified by me,
Advocate
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE
APPEAL NO. /2014
BETWEEN:
ABC Appellant
AND:
State of Karnataka and others Respondent
A F F I D A V I T
- ABC S/o XYZ, aged 59 years, R/o RR Colony, Ashapur Road, Raichur, now in Bangalore do hereby state on oath as under:
- I, state that, the above appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 24/06/2014 passed by the respondent herein thereby cancelling the order of conversion dated 04/01/2014 passed in respect of the land in question.
- I, state that the above order has been passed without affording proper opportunity to the appellant and also on mis reading/non reading of the documents presented before him in its proper perspective. That, the respondent has misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued the material on record in relation to suit No 00/1974 and this has resulted in erroneous conclusion while passing the impugned order.
- I, state that the impugned order was not communicated to the appellant and that it is the appellant upon verification having come to know about the passing of the impugned order applied and got the certified copy of the order on 7th August 2014
- I, state that thereafter the process of appellant consulting the advocate regarding the filing of the appeal took some time and as such, there is some delay in preferring this appeal.
- I, state that, in the event of there being delay in filing the present appeal, the same is neither intentional nor deliberate but for the bonafide reason stated herein above.
- I, state that no hardship or prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the delay in filing this appeal is condoned but, on the other hand if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned severe hardship and prejudice would be caused to the appellant.
- WHEREFORE, this Hon’ble tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of days in preferring the above appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
Date:
Place:
Identified by me,
Advocate
No. of corrections
BEFORE THE KARNTATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
APPEAL NO /2014
BETWEEN
ABC … Appellant
And:
Deputy Commissioner, Raichur … Respondent
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 51(a) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 READ WITH SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT
That, for the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit this Hon’ble court be pleased to condone the delay of days in filing the appeal in the interest of Justice and equity.
Bangalore,
Date: Advocate for Appellant
BEFORE THE KARNTATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
APPEAL NO /2014
BETWEEN:
ABC … Appellant
And
Deputy Commissioner, Raichur … Respondent
LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE APPEAL
- Copy of the sale deed dated 15/02/20111 executed by POQ and others in favor of the Appellant
- Mutation Extract No 00/2011-2012 dated 27/08/2011 in the name of the Appellant.
- RTC extract s dated 06/08/2014 showing the name of Appellant in Column Nos 9 and 12(2).
- Copy of the order dated 21/09/2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur under section section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
- Copy of the report of the Tahsildar.
- Copy of the conversion order dated 04/01/2014
- Certified copies of the Ordersheet, Plaint, Compromise petition and compromise Decree in O.S.No 00/1974.
- Impugned order dated 26/06/2014 passed by the respondent.
Date: 09/09/2014 Advocate for Appellant
Place:Bangalore
BEFORE THE KARNTATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO /2014
BETWEEN:
S ABC
S/o XYZ
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation: Fish Merchant
R/o RR Colony, Raichur ...APPELLANT
A N D:
Deputy Commissioner ,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
Raichur …RESPONDENT
Application Under Regulation 13 of the KAT Regulations 1979 R/w Section 151 CPC
The Appellant above named prays that for the reasons contained in the accompanying affidavit this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to Stay the Order dated 26/06/2014 passed by the Respondent in file No.ALN/153/202-13 and in respect of Sy. No 00/2, measuring 3 Acres 20 Guntas of Raichur Village, Raichur Hobli, Raichur Taluk pending disposal of the above appeal and pass other suitable orders
Date: 09/09/2014
Bangalore Advocate for Appellant
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
Appeal No. /2014
Between
ABC Appellant
And
Deputy Commissioner, Raichur Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
- I ABC S/o XYZ, aged 59 years, R/o RR Colony, Ashapur Road, Raichur, now in Bangalore do hereby state on oath as under:
- I am the Applicant in the application and the Appellant in the above appeal. I am fully conversant with the facts of the case.
- I, respectfully submit that I have preferred the above appeal against the impugned order dated 24-06-2014 in order no. No.ALN/153/202-13 passed by Respondent vide Annexure- H thereby cancelling order dated 04/01/2014 permitting the change of land use to non-agricultural purposes in respect of Land bearing Sy.No. 00/2, measuring 3 Acres 20 Guntas, Raichur Village, Raichur Hobli, Raichur Taluk. The grounds stated in the Memorandum of Appeal may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit. It will be seen there from that there was absolutely no material on record for the respondent No.2 to hold that vendors of the appellant had no right to transfer/sell the total extent of 3 Acres 20 Guntas in favour of the appellant herein. Further, the Respondent committed a grave and serious error of law and fact in passing the impugned order by improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order passed by the Respondent being wholly unjust, illegal and opposed to the facts and probabilities of the case, the same calls for interference at the hands of this Hon’ble Tribunal.
- I submit that I have a prima facie good case to urge in the above appeal and the balance of convenience is in my favour. Despite the impugned order, I continue in possession and enjoyment of the property. Pursuant to the impugned order, the respondents are taking steps to disturb my possession over my Land and if they were to succeed, it will cause great loss and hardship to me. It is therefore necessary that the impugned order passed by the Respondent is stayed pending disposal of above appeal failing which I will be put to irreparable injury and hardship and justice will suffer.
- WHEREFORE for the reasons stated herein above it is just and expedient that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order as prayed for in the annexed application.
VERIFICATION
I, ABC, the deponent above named do hereby verify that what is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Identified by me
Advocate Deponent
