Full Judgment
1. Petitioners claim title through one Muniyamma, said to have held a life interest in several immovable properties including land measuring 31 guntas in Sy.No.77/1A; 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.79/1A and; 6 guntas in Sy.No.55/18 of Byranahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The fact that Muniyamma held a life interest, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner is in terms of the finding recorded and declaration in the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1959 in O.S.No.300 of 1957 of the Munsiff at Doddaballapur, Annexure-E. instituted by Muniyappa, son of Puttarangaiah, father of the petitioner and on his death represented by his widow and children including the petitioner, arraigning Muniyamma as 1st defendant for declaration of title to the said properties as well as to declare as null and void the deeds of conveyance of the lands by Muniyamma in favour of B.K. Gangabyraiah, the 3rd respondent, since deceased and represented by LR's, respondents 3 to 5 herein. According to learned Counsel in that suit a finding is recorded that one Putta Rangaiah, grandfather of petitioner and Thimmaiah, husband of Muniyamma, were brothers and there was as a fact a release deed executed on 10-8-1943 by the said Muniyamma, releasing and relinquishing her right in the lands in question consequent upon the death of her husband Thimmaiah, while rejecting the plea of an earlier partition between the brothers whence the suit schedule lands fell to the share of 1st defendant's husband. In the light of the findings, the Trial Court, it is submitted, declared that Muniyamma was a limited owner having a life interest in the suit properties, and the alienation in favour of Thimmaiah, S/o Halumathada Thimmaiah/2nd defendant and Gangabyraiah, S/o Pujari Kambaiah under sale deeds-Exhibits D.1 to D.3 were not binding on the plaintiffs after the lifetime of the 1st defendant.
2. Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, when interfered with by one of the legal representative of B.K. Gangabyraiah, led to institution of O.S.No.192 of 2014 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nelamangala, arraigning the said person as defendant 1, who on notice, entered appearance and filed written statement dated 16-9-2014 disclosing that his father filed an application in Form 7 under Section 45(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, before the Land Tribunal for being registered as an occupant of the lands in question, amongst others, registered as No. LRF BYA 7/1975-76, whence by order dated 6-2-1976 occupancy rights were conferred upon B.K. Gangabyraiah, since Muniyamma had admitted that the applicant was a tenant for over 20 years. Thereafterwards, during the year 1981, the name of B.K. Gangabyraiah was recorded in the Revenue Records in M.R.No.3/1981-82.
3. Petitioner asserts that it is for the first time, in the light of the disclosure in the written statement that he became aware of the proceeding before the Land Tribunal, since admittedly not a party to the proceeding, despite the fact that B.K. Gangabyraiah suffered a judgment and decree dated 28-5-1959 in O.S.No.300 of 1957. On obtaining certified copies of the proceedings, Annexures-L and M of the Land Tribunal, the Tahsildar in reply to petitioner's RTI query, by endorsement dated 7-2-2015, Annexure-N, stated that the lands did not vest in the State.
4. It appears that one Rangaiah, son of Muniyappa, another Sri Putta Rangaiah, son of Muniyappa and others, Gurudaiah, S/o late Chikkanna, Range Gowda, son of late Gangappa, Cavi Rangaiah, S/o late Doddaiah, Kempaiah, S/o late Doddaiah, of which Rangaiah, S/o Muniyappa and petitioner filed R.A. No. 169/2014-15 before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur, arraigning respondents 3 to 5 as respondents 1 to 3 therein and another B.K. Byregowda, S/o late Kambaiah as respondent 4 and the Tahsildar as respondent 5, invoking sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 calling in question the orders passed in MR Nos.3/1987-88 and 13/2000-01 in respect of Sy.Nos.771/1 A, 79/1A, 55/1A and 55/1B of Byrenahalli and that notice is ordered on the said respondents and the appeal is pending, while the aforesaid orders impugned therein have been stayed by order dated 29-10-2014.
5. It is the allegation of the petitioner that before the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala Taluk in No. LRF BYA 7/1975-76 relating to claim of B.K. Gangabyraiah, to be registered as an occupant of the lands in question amongst others, arraigning Muniyamma, Patel Rangegowda and P. Marirangaiah as respondents, the Land Tribunal accepting the statement of Muniyamma admitting that Gangabyraiah was the tenant of land since 20 years allowed the application in Form 7 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 by order dated 6-2-1976 and conferred occupancy rights on B.K. Gangabyraiah in respect of the lands in question, amongst other lands.
6. There is no dispute that: petition is filed 40 years after the order passed by the Land Tribunal; Muniyamma. W/o Thimmaiah, holder of life interest in the said property was arraigned as respondent before the Land Tribunal; petitioner was not arraigned as respondent; B.K. Gangabyraiah's claim of being a tenant under Muniyamma for the past 20 years was accepted. However, what is required to be noticed is that in the statement Annexure-M of Gangabyraiah, it is recorded that Muniyamma was the second wife of father of Gangabyraiah and that under a mortgage deed, he was in possession and enjoyment of the lands. Based upon that statement, the Land Tribunal is said to have conferred occupancy rights on B.K. Gangabyraiah. Petitioner, a minor represented by his natural guardian mother as legal representative of deceased father-plaintiff was permitted to prosecute O'S, No. 300 of 1957 whence by judgment and decree dated 28-9-1959 Muniyamma, W/o Thimmaiah, was declared to hold a life estate in the suit schedule properties and that the sale of the said properties in favour of Gangabyraiah and another were not binding on the father of the petitioner, nevertheless, that B.K. Gangabyraiah did not arraign either petitioner or his Siblings, the plaintiffs in O.S. No.300 of 1957 as parties to the proceeding before the Land Tribunal.
7. In the circumstances, learned Counsel for petitioner is correct in his submission that a fraud was played to obtain the order dated 6-2-1976 from the Land Tribunal.
8. In the facts and circumstances, the observation in M/s. Green View Tea and Industries v. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and Another (AIR 2004 SC 1738 : (2004) 4 SCC 122 : 2004 AIR SCW 1347), following the observation in S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka and Others (1996 (6) Kar.L.J.743 (SC) : 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595 : 1994 SCC (L and S) 320 : 1994-I-LLJ-851 (SC)) is apposite. It is the duty of the Court to rectify, revise and recall its orders as and when it is brought to its notice that certain of its orders were passed on a wrong or mistaken assumption of facts and that implementation of those orders would have serious consequences ?. An act of Court shall prejudice no man. In other words, the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies.
9. Applying the wry same observations to the facts of this case, it is needless to state that, it is for the petitioner to approach the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala, with necessary application to recall the order dated 6-2-1976 impugned in this petition on the premise that fraud had been played upon it and if so done, there is no reason to believe that the Land Tribunal would not consider petitioner's application and pass orders in accordance with law. Petition is rejected subject to the aforesaid observations.