NINGAVVA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the order dated 30th April, 2015 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the representations made by them requesting to restore their names in respect of mutation entry. Further, they have also sought for a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to enter their names in the revenue records in respect of Block No.339/1 measuring 5 acres 26 guntas of land situated at Gamanagatti village, Hubballi Taluk.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that Gadigeppa Kallappa Narayanpur of Amargol village was the owner of Block No.339/1 of Gamanagatti village along with his brother, Sri Channappa Kallappa Narayanpur. The property is a joint family property of two brothers. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.105519-522/2015 are the wife and children of Gadigeppa Kallappa Narayanpur, who died on 14.4.2004 and the petitioner in W.P.No.106458/2015 is the brother of the deceased. They were jointly cultivating the joint family properties including the property in Block No.339/1 along with their uncle Sri Channappa Kallappa Narayanpur. The proceedings were initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'ULCR Act'). The deceased, Gadigeppa Kallappa Narayanpur had filed a protest declaration as provided under Section 6 of the ULCR Act. The Special Deputy Commissioner, who is the competent authority under the ULCR Act, initiated the proceedings and declared that Block No.339/1 measuring 22818.2369 sq. meters was treated as vacant land in excess of ceiling limits and issued a notification dated 21.11.1979 overruling the objections filed by Gadigeppa Kallappa Narayanpur. Further, the records were built up to show that the competent authority has taken possession of the property by drawing a mahazar and thereafter the land was allotted to the third respondent/Hubballi - Dharwad Municipal Corporation on 10.12.1982. However, the possession continues to be with the petitioners and they are cultivating the land as on today. The nature of land is agricultural land. Even today, the land in question continues to be the agricultural land. The property belonging to the petitioners falls within the limits of an urban agglomeration. Though the agricultural land falls within the limits of urban agglomeration, it cannot be called as urban land. The agricultural land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, situated within the urban agglomeration limits falls outside the purview of the urban land. Without following the procedure prescribed under Section 10 of the ULCR Act, the alleged possession has been taken and subsequently the land in question has been allotted to the Hubbali-Dharwad Municipal Corporation.

(3.) In view of repeal of the ULCR Act in the year 1999 by Act No.15 of 1999, petitioners filed W.P.No.41446/1999 questioning the validity of notification dated 21.11.1979 inter alia contending that in view of repealing of the ULCR Act, petitioners are entitled to claim benefit under Section 3 of the repealing Act since they continued to be in possession of the said agricultural land in question. The proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner abates in view of the repealing Act. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievance before the competent appropriate authority in terms of the repealing Act by moving an application in that regard. After dismissal of the said writ petition, Gadigeppa Kallappa Narayanpur made a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, who is the competent authority under the ULCR Act, stating that the property is in his possession and cultivation, in view of repealing of the ULCR Act and he was entitled to retain the said property upon re-depositing the award amount received by him. However, the said representation was not considered. Thereafter, two more representations dated 15.3.2013 and 18.12.2013 were made. Since the same were not considered, petitioners filed W.P.Nos.75209-75212/2013 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representations. This Court had disposed of the writ petitions on 10th January, 2013 and issued a direction to the respondents to consider the representations as expeditiously as possible not later than three months. After filing of the contempt petitions, the respondents hurriedly passed an order on 30.4.2015 rejecting the representations submitted by the petitioners holding that the possession of land has already been taken by the competent authority and allotted to Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.