B BENNARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W. P. No. 24204/2000 an application is filed by the impleading applicants who are the purchasers of the land in question. As they are the persons who are likely to be affected by any orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petition and in fact their sale deed is sought to be quashed, I. A. I/04 is allowed. Petitioner to amend the cause title.

(2.) THE brief facts giving raise to the Writ Petitions are as hereunder :3. The subject matter of dispute is land bearing Sy. No. 108/3 situated at Mysore Village, mysore Taluk, measuring 3 acres 10 guntas. In respect of this land two applications were filed in form No. VII for grant of occupancy rights under Section 48a of the Karnataka Land Reforms act (hereinafter for short, called as 'the Act' ). One application was filed by one Perumal and the said case was numbered as LRF No. 2977/74-75. Yet another application is filed by K. M. Jayaram Mudaliar. Both the applications were clubbed. Perumal did not press his application and, therefore, his application came to be rejected. Whereas, Jayaram Mudaliar's claim was accepted by the Tribunal and occupancy rights were granted in his favour by an order dated 7. 11. 1978. In the said Form No. 7, one Smt. Ponnamma, w/o late Ponnuswamy was shown as the owner of the land. Smt. Ponnumal challenged the said order of the Land Tribunal before this court by filing a Writ Petition in W. P. No. 19565/83. In fact before the order came to be passed by the Land Tribunal, Jayaram Mudaliar died and his wife Sundari was brought on record along with yet another lady by name Bagyammal. Therefore, in the Writ Petition filed by Ponnumal, smt. Sundari wife of Jayaram Mudaliar was made a party. In the Writ Petition Smt. Sundari, wife of Jayaram Mudaliar filed an affidavit stating that her husband was not a tenant but a mortgagee in possession and the application in Form No. 7 was filed under a mistaken notion and she asserted that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. Acting on the said affidavit, this Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Jayaram Mudaliar and dismissed Form No. 7 by its order dated 25. 3. 1985.

(3.) PETITIONER-BENNARI claims that his father and one Ponnuswamy, i. e. the husband of Ponnumal were brothers, they constituted a Hindu family, there was no partition in their family and the land in question belongs to the joint family. As he had also interest in the property he should have been made a party before the Land Tribunal and, therefore, the order passed by the Land tribunal granting occupancy rights is in violation of principles of natural justice. So contending he filed WP. No. 16760/1984 before this Court challenging the said order of the Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Jayaram Mudaliar. However, he made Bagyammal and sundari as persons claiming under Jayaram Mudaliar. He did not make Ponnamal a party. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Act came to be amended creating an Appellate authority. Consequently, the High Court sent the Writ Petition pending to the Appellate authority and directed both the parties to appear before the Authority on 30. 10. 1986 and the appellate Authority was directed to issue notice to the parties and to hear the appeal on merits i. e. , the validity of the order of Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Jayaram mudaliar. It appears from the records the petitioner and his brothers filed an affidavit withdrawing the appeal in view of the fact that their paternal aunt has sold the property in question in favour of respondents 4 to 8. In the said affidavit it was stated that the said property exclusively belongs to Ponnuswamy and, therefore, to Ponnumal and the petitioner or his brothers have no interest in the property. It also further states that they have received a sum of rs. 32,500. 00 as consideration under separate agreement relinquishing their interest in favour of the purchasers. They also acknowledged the possession of the property with that of the purchasers. Thereafter, an application for early hearing of the said appeal was filed supported by an affidavit of the petitioner where he has sworn to the fact that they have entered into a compromise. In fact in the said appeal Ponnamal was made a party, fourth respondent. Acting on the said affidavit filed by the petitioner and his brothers and also taking note of the fact that this court has already passed an order in W. P. No. 19565/1983 rejecting the Form No. 7 filed by jayaram Mudaliar, the Appeal came to be dismissed as withdrawn. In the course of the order it was observed that the parties to the proceedings in W. P. No. 19565/1983 misrepresented the facts to this Court and got an order in their favour but the Tribunal cannot sit in judgment over the said order and if the State is aggrieved they are advised to challenge the said order before the high Court. The said Appeal before the Appellate Authority was numbered as lrf. MYS. Appeal. 367/1986 and the order dismissing the appeal came to be passed on 18. 2. 1987. It appears from the record acting on the observations made by the Appellate authority. The State preferred Writ Appeal No, 1530/1997 which also came to be dismissed on 3. 9. 1987. Thus, the order passed by this Court on 25. 3. 1985 in W. P. No. 19565/1983 has become final after contest.