HANUMAPPA (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION          I.A. NO.62796 OF 2020                          IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5467­5468 OF 2019   Hanumappa   (Since   Deceased)   by   His   Lrs.   &   Ors.             .… Appellant(s) Versus The State of Karnataka & Ors.               …. Respondent(s)                                   O R D E R 1.  The   respondent   No.4   to   this   petition   has   filed   the instant   application   seeking   modification/vacation   of   the interim order dated 15.02.2019 passed by this Court. Through the order dated 15.02.2019 this Court had directed the parties to maintain status­quo as it existed on that date.  2.             The facts in brief limited to the consideration of this Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rachna Date: 2020.10.13 15:50:23 IST Reason: application would indicate that the respondent No.3 herein was originally the owner of the property bearing Survey Nos. 91 and 2 92,   Chikkagubbi   Village.   The   respondent   No.4   herein   had purchased   the   same   under   a   registered   Sale   Deed   dated 26.04.1978.   The   petitioner   herein   claiming   to   be   an agricultural   tenant   in   respect   of   the   said   property   as   also certain   other   properties   and   further   claiming   to   be   in possession   and   cultivation   of   the   same   as   on   01.03.1974; which   is   the   appointed   date   under   the   Karnataka   Land Reforms   Act,   1961   had   filed   an   application   in   Form   No.   7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the property. The Land Tribunal, Bengaluru, South Taluk considered the same in case bearing No. LRF(B)CJ;126674­75.  3.               At the first instance, the Land Tribunal through its order dated 26.12.1981 allowed the application and granted the   occupancy   right   in  favour   of   the   petitioner   herein.   The respondent No.4 herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said order as he was not made a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, assailed the order of the Land Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.30301/1982. The High Court through its order dated 23.09.1997 quashed the order passed the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after 3 providing   opportunity   to   the   respondent   No.4.   Subsequent thereto evidence was tendered by the parties and the Land Tribunal   having   considered   the   matter;   through   a   detailed order   dated   16.09.1998   rejected   the   application   dated 31.12.1974 filed by the petitioner.  4.         The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the order   had   assailed   the   same   before   the   High   Court   in W.P.No.30602/1998. The High Court through the order dated 14.10.1998   upheld   the   order   of   the   Land   Tribunal   and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner filed an intra­court appeal in W.A.No.1818/2008. The Division Bench, by its order dated   03.12.2015   dismissed   the   appeal.   The   petitioner thereafter belatedly filed a Review Petition in the year 2017 in Review   Petition   No.28/2017   which   came   to   be   dismissed through the order dated 21.06.2017. It is in that circumstance the petitioner has filed the special leave petition before this Court. This Court while directing notice to the respondent had granted   the   ad­interim   order   of   status­quo.   The   respondent No.4 having appeared has filed a counter­affidavit to the Writ Petition and this application seeking modification/vacation of the interim order.  4 5.               In the above background we have heard Mr. Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counsel for the applicant/respondent No.4 and Mr.S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent to this   application   who   is   the   petitioner   in   the   special   leave petition. 6.        The short issue for consideration at this point is as to whether the petitioner has made out a case for continuation of the order of status­quo during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition. As noticed, the claim of the petitioner is that he was a tenant in cultivation of the property as on 01.03.1974. Such claim is sought to be justified by contending that his name is indicated in the cultivator’s Column of the RTC and that such tenancy was on crop sharing basis. The respondent No.4   who   has   filed   the   instant   application   has   however disputed the claim. Though the respondent No.4 purchased the property on 26.04.1978 i.e. subsequent to the appointed date, the interest in the property as claimed by the respondent No.4 has   been   accepted   by   the   High   Court   in   Writ   Petition No.30301/1982 through the order dated 23.09.1997 and the matter   had   been   remanded   to   the   Land   Tribunal   for   fresh 5 consideration   after   providing   opportunity   to   the   respondent No.4/applicant. 7.      If that be the position,  all that is to be taken note at this juncture is as to whether the claim of the petitioner that he was  a  tenant  of   the   land   in  question   is   to   be   accepted   as unassailable and whether the continuation of the status­quo as contended   by   the   petitioner   in   special   leave   petition   merits consideration. For the limited purpose, a perusal of the order dated 16.09.1998 passed by the Land Tribunal would   prima facie  disclose that a detailed consideration of the evidence and the analysis of rival contentions has been made.  It is in that light   the   application   in   Form   No.7   has   been   rejected.   The contention of Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel is that the RTC extracts indicates the name of the petitioner as a cultivator in Column No.12(2) thereof.   We notice that the Land Tribunal in fact has referred to this aspect in detail and has noted that the RTC extracts from 1971­72 to 1977­78 indicates the name of the   respondent   No.3   i.e.   that   the   predecessor   in   title   to respondent No.4 as a cultivator. The Tribunal has also referred to certain stray entries in the name of the petitioner in the year 1974­75 and 1975­76 in the cultivator’s column. In that light 6 the   Tribunal   has   proceeded   further   to   consider   the   other evidence available on record and has arrived at the conclusion that the said entries are not supported by any other evidence, more   particularly   the   petitioner   had   not   produced   any documentary   evidence   for   having   given   Rs.3000/­   to   the respondent No.3, being 50 per cent of the  value of Eucalyptus trees which was claimed to be   sold by him for Rs.6000/­ to establish the claim of tenancy being on crop sharing basis. Further no other document was produced to indicate that there was an arrangement on crop sharing basis. Such conclusion reached by the Land Tribunal has been concurrently upheld by the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   in   W.P. No.30602/1998   by   the   order   dated   14.10.1998   and   by   the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1818/2008(LR) through the order dated 03.12.2015.  The Review Petition filed against the same in Review Petition No.28/2017 was also dismissed on 21.06.2017.  8.                 No doubt Mr. S.N.Bhat, learned counsel sought to contend   that   the   petitioner   had   the   benefit   of   the   order   of status­quo during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court and as such the same benefit be continued. Even if 7 that   be   the   position;   as   rightly   pointed   out   by   Mr.   Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counsel, the Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner   herein   in   Writ   Appeal   No.1818/2008(LR)   was dismissed as early as on 03.12.2015 and the interim order if any had ceased to exist.  The instant Special Leave Petition was filed only in the year 2017 with a delay of 546 days. True it is that   the   Review   Petition   had   been   filed   in   the   meanwhile. However, the said Review Petition itself was filed with a delay of 380 days from the date of disposal of the Writ Appeal and in any   event   the   petitioner   herein   cannot   claim   benefit   of   an interim order from the date of disposal of the Writ Appeal on 03.12.2015. In such event, though this Court has condoned the delay, the grant of an order of status­quo at that juncture was without reference to all these aspects.  9.        That apart, the petitioner had also filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No.333/2017 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru   Rural   District   seeking   for   decree   of   permanent injunction.   In   the   suit   an   application   seeking   temporary injunction was also filed but no interim order had been granted therein. This conduct of the petitioners would also disclose that the petitioners having not agitated the matter after disposal of 8 the   Writ   Appeal   on   03.12.2015   had   begun   to   reagitate   the matter only  when the  respondent No.4 was  taking steps to develop the property.  In that regard, the documents produced by   respondent   No.4   in   its   reply   statement   along   with   an application   would   disclose   that   the   respondent   No.4   having entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 27.06.2016 (Annexure   A2);   the   developer   was   taking   further   steps   for securing   Environment   Impact   Assessment   Certificate   and appropriate   registration   before   the   Real   Estate   Regulatory Authority. The said proceedings would also indicate that the property  at this  point has  lost  its character  as  agricultural property. If that be the position, the petitioner continuing to cultivate the property or being in possession thereof cannot be accepted at this juncture to continue the order of status­quo. Be that as it may, even if on assessment of the entire case while considering the Special Leave Petition on merits if the right claimed to be a tenant as on 01.03.1974 is accepted, the interest of the petitioner would lie in the developed property and can be appropriately compensated.  Thus even on applying the tripod test, the balance of convenience to vacate the order of status­quo is in favour of the respondent No.4. Needless to 9 mention that the change in the nature of the land and the development made therein would therefore remain subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition.  10. In that view, the order dated 15.02.2019 passed herein is modified and the direction issued to the parties to maintain status­quo shall stand vacated. The application is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.    ..…………....................CJI.        (S. A. Bobde) …..…………....................J. (A. S. Bopanna) ..…..………......................J.        (V. Ramasubramanian) October 13 , 2020 New Delhi