BHAVERA KENCHAPPA Vs. B RAGHAVENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this writ appeal being aggrieved by the rejection of his writ petition by the learned Single Judge on 6-12-1999 (Bhavera Kenchappa v B. Raghavendrachar Others ). The appellant herein filed the writ petition challenging the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar, Honnali Taluk dated 17-5-1996. As per the averments of the writ petition, respondents 1 to 3 were the village officers in whose favour 72-09 acres of land situated at Chatnahalli Village of Honnali taluk were regranted by the Assistant Commissioner on 10-3-1969. As per the orders of regrant, Sy. Nos. 69 and 140 of Chatnahalli Village were also included. The appellant herein claiming to be a tenant under respondents 1 to 3, in respect of Sy. No. 69 measuring 1-04 acres and Sy. No. 140 measuring 4-00 acres is in possession of the same. Subsequently, under an agreement of sale dated 5-9-1969 the appellant agreed to purchase the above said land from the respondents. In other words, appellant was a tenant till 5-9-1969 and thereafter he came to be an agreement-holder in respect of these two parcels of land. Though the agreement has been entered into, no sale deed was obtained by the appellant from respondents 1 to 3, but he continued to be in possession of the land. After the introduction of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, appellant herein filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Honnali and the application of the appellant was rejected by the Tribunal as per the order dated 18-7-1977 holding that the lands claimed by the appellant were not re-granted in favour of respondents 1 to 3 and the said lands were still considered as inam lands. On that short ground, the application came to be rejected. Again, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 26-8-1977 granted the occupancy right in favour of the appellant in respect of 1-04 acres of land in Sy. No. 69 and 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 140 and the petitioner continued to be in possession pursuant to the orders of the Land Tribunal. The detailed order passed on 26-8-1977 is not on record. The circumstances in which the Tribunal passed the second order one month later are not clear from the order sheet filed by 1st respondent. Though the notice was issued to respondents 1 to 3 herein by the Land Tribunal, they did not contest the case and therefore the tribunal considering the evidence of the petitioner granted occupancy right on 26-8-1977. On an application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, proceedings were initiated before the Tahsildar, Honnali Taluk for eviction of the appellant in respect of Sy. Nos. 69 and 140 of Chatnahalli in case No. T. T. C. R. 10/92-93. The said proceedings were initiated by the respondents pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 (6) of the karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter refer to as 'the Act' ). After holding a detailed enquiry, Tahsildar on 17-5- 1996 passed an order of eviction while holding that the respondents therein have a right to recover the sale price through Court.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar, Honnali, the appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Shi-moga in M. A. Nos. 31 and 47 of 1996. The District Judge, after hearing the parties held that the appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable in view of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and directed the parties to present the appeal before the appropriate authority. Subsequently, writ petition was filed by the appellant herein challenging the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar, Honnali in Writ Petition no. 22970 of 1998 on the ground that when the Land Tribunal had confirmed the occupancy rights in his favour and the said order had not been challenged by respondents 1 to 3, Tahsildar could not have passed an order of eviction by invoking sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. According to the appellant, he continues to be in possession of the property as a tenant under the respondent and therefore the order of eviction passed holding that the appellant is in possession of the property under the part performance of the sale agreement was one without jurisdiction. It is also pleaded by him that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction, as long as the order of the Tribunal is in force and that the proceedings have been initiated by misrepresenting the facts before the Tahsildar and that such application has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3 15 years after the order granting occupancy certificate by the Tribunal in his favour and 23 years after the order of regrant made in favour of the respondents. In other words, it is contended by the appellant that within a reasonable time, respondents did not initiate proceedings before the Tahsildar. The petition of the appellant was opposed by respondents 1 to 3. According to them, appellant is in possession of the property by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of property Act and therefore the order of Tahsildar cannot be challenged by the appellant claiming support under the orders of the Tribunal dated 26-8-1977. They also contended that the orders of the Tribunal dated 26-8-1977 has to be ignored by the Court in view of rejection of the application of the appellant by the Tribunal on 18-7-1977. It is contended by the respondents that when once the Tribunal had rejected the application of the petitioner on 18-7-1977, Tribunal will not get jurisdiction to grant occupancy right again on 26-8-1977 in respect of the same land between the same parties. They also contended that the orders of the Tribunal dated 26-8-1977 need not be challenged by them as the same was passed without jurisdiction.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by holding that the appellant herein had not approached the High Court while invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with clean hands. According to the learned Single Judge, petitioner has suppressed the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the application of the appellant on 18-7-1977. Mainly on the ground of suppression of facts, writ petition of the petitioner came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, present appeal is filed by the appellant.