Karnataka High Court
Sri.Neelakanta Sastry vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.5847 OF 2013 (KLR - RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
Sri.Neelakanta Sastry,
S/o Aswathappa,
Major, Aged 55 years,
Kuduregere Village,
Tarahunase Post, Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk - 560 072.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.P.M.Narayanaswamy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Revenue Department, M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
Bangalore - 560 002.
3. The Tahsildar,
Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 002.
...Respondents
(By Sri. Sandesh Kumar M., HCGP for R1 to R3)
-2-
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
impugned order dated 18.11.2010 i.e., Annexure - H
passed by 2nd respondent. and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
in 'B' group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the second respondent i.e. the Special Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-'H'.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner has contended that he is in unauthorized occupation of Gomala land bearing Sy.No.50 situated at Kuduregere Village, Jala hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore.
It is the case of the petitioner that he has been cultivating the land prior to 1960. The petitioner and similarly situated persons made a representation to the first respondent with a request to regularize the -3- unauthorized cultivation in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.59 and 60 situated at the above said village. It appears that the State Government by its order dated 01.09.1977 passed in No. RD 105 LGP 77 issued a direction to the second respondent i.e., the Special Deputy Commissioner not to evict the petitioner and other similarly situated persons who had infact encroached the land and are in unauthorized cultivation of land. The petitioner further averred that it was also ordered to regularize the occupation of such landless persons by relaxing the rules under the provisions of 27 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. On the basis of the Government's direction, the second respondent i.e. the Special Deputy Commissioner issued an Official Memorandum on 14.06.1979 wherein it was resolved by the Special Deputy Commissioner to reduce the Gomala land and grant the same to the landless un-authorized occupants in Sy.Nos. 50 and 59. A copy of the Official Memorandum is produced and marked as Annexure-'A' to the writ petition.-4-
3. The competent authority namely the Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk on enquiry has issued the grant certificate in favour of petitioner in respect of 2 acres in Sy.No.50 and saguvali chit was also issued. Based on the grant certificate and saguvali chit, the petitioner's name was duly mutated in the revenue records.
4. The petitioner has specifically averred in para No.4 of the writ petition that a representation was made to the Tahasildar requesting to transfer khata in his favour and the same was forwarded to the Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk to verify the grant of land and submit a report in regard to the grant. The Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk after enquiry, has issued a grantees list dated 10.01.2006 vide No. LND.CR.294/2005-06 pertaining to Sy.Nos. 50 and 59 wherein the name of the petitioner is also included. A copy of the aforesaid letter issued by the Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk is also produced and it is marked as Annexure-'G' to the writ petition.
5. The second respondent i.e. the Special Deputy Commissioner by exercising the power under Section 136 -5- (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has proceeded to hold an inquiry to find as to whether there were any fraudulent claims in respect of Sy.Nos. 50 and 59 and on inquiry, the second respondent has passed an impugned order as per Annexure-'H' and has cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order is passed by the second respondent who is in KAS cadre.
6. Learned HCGP would submit to this Court that pursuant to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.51551-52/2013 and W.P.No.57847/2016, the State Government has issued a Circular dated 10.10.2014 wherein it is stated that all these cases pertaining to the aforesaid lands in securing grants had been re-allocated to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Cadre. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the second respondent i.e. the Special Deputy Commissioner who is in KAS cadre has no jurisdiction to hold an inquiry under Section 136 (3) of the Act. -6-
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. I find some force in the submission made by the learned HCGP that the Special Deputy Commissioner who is of KAS cadre has no authority to preside over the enquiry under Section 136(3) of the Act. On this count the order under challenge needs to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the authority. However, before the competent authority proceeds to hold a summary enquiry as contemplated under Section 136(3) of the Act, has to confine the enquiry strictly in terms of the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Act. He needs to examine whether there is any source based on which the mutation is effected and consequent entries are made in the revenue records. While examining this material aspect, the Deputy Commissioner cannot virtually examine the correctness of the source, which is impermissible under Section 136(3) of the Act. -7-
The Deputy Commissioner while exercising power under Section 136(3) is required to act on relevant provisions and within the limits of the statutory power. This Court was of the view that the authority while exercising power under Section 136(3) cannot examine the correctness of re-grant orders, relaxation orders or the saguvali chit and all these matters are to be examined independently in appropriate proceedings and not in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Act. This proposition has been reiterated by a Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in Sanny Kulathakal vs State of Karnataka and others, reported in 2015(3) Kar.L.J 276 and Kunnappa Vs State of Karnataka and Others (2012(1) KLJ 28).
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the second respondent i.e. the Special Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-'H' is quashed. The -8- matter is remanded back for fresh consideration strictly in terms of the proposition laid down by this Court in Kunnappa .vs. State of Karnataka [2012(1) Kar.L.J.28] and Sunny Kulathakal .vs. State of Karnataka and others [ 2015(3) Kar.L.J.276].
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD