Karnataka High Court
Smt. S. Nagalakshmi vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 January, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.56799 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT. S. NAGALAKSHMI
D/O M NARASIMHALU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT TANK BUND ROAD
CHINTAMANI TOWN-561207
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
SHIDLAGATTA ROAD
CHICKBALLAPUR-561 207
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
CHICKBALLAPUR-561 207
3. THE TAHSILDAR
CHINTAMANI TALUK
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
CHINTAMANI-561206
-2-
4. MARIYAMMA
W/O VENKATASHAMAPPA
KURATA HALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHINTAMANI (T)-563125
5. KRISHNAPPA
S/O DODDARAMAPPA
KURATA HALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHINTAMANI (T)-563125
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 & R5 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE R-1 DTD10.02.2014 IN R.A.NO.53/2010-11 AT
ANNEXURE-J AND THE PROCEEDIGNS BEFORE 3RD
RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-K.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.02.2014 passed by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.53/2010-11 and subsequent action -3- on the part of the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar in initiating proceedings in RRTPS(A)/01/2014-15 consequent to the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner is also called in question in this writ petition.
2. It is evident from the materials available on record that the name of the petitioner came to be entered in the revenue records consequent to a registered sale deed dated 22.06.1996 by Sri.K.P.Krishnappa S/o Doddaramappa in favour of the petitioner, in respect of Sy.No.25/P-29, measuring 1 acre 37 guntas. It is stated in the recitals of the sale deed that the land was granted in favour of Sri.K.P.Krishnappa during the year 1961-62. However, since the name of the petitioner was not entered in the revenue records inspite of a registered instrument in her favour, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Lokayukta with a complaint. Thereafter, on the directions said to have been issued by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, the -4- name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records in RRTC No.49/2002-03 dated 07.05.2002.
3. It was at that juncture that the 4th respondent approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, complaining that she had filed an application in Form No.53 in respect of 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.25 of Gopasandra village, Chintamani Taluk, since she was in unauthorized occupation. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed him to hold an enquiry to find out whether the very Sri.K.P.Krishnappa was indeed granted 1 acre 37 guntas of land in Sy.No.25 of Gopasandra village, Chintamani Taluk. Thereafter, the Tahsildar passed an order dated 06.03.2006, giving a finding that as found in record CDR No.41/1961-62 the said land were granted in favour of Sri.K.P.Krishnappa s/o Doddaramappa. However, due to a fire accident some of -5- those records were destroyed, but other co-relating documents were available to substantiate that the grant was made in favour of Sri.K.P.Krishnappa.
4. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the next incumbent Tahsildar, without notice to the petitioner, recalled the earlier order dated 06.03.2006 and directed the entry of the name of the 'Government'. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner to set aside the subsequent order dated 28.05.2009 passed by the Tahsildar. It appears that the Assistant Commissioner had passed an order dated 01.06.2009 setting aside the order on 28.05.2009 passed by the Tahsildar. However, the said order was once again recalled by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 21.05.2010. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not known as to how the Assistant Commissioner could recall the earlier order dated 01.06.2009 and under which provision of law the Assistant Commissioner was -6- empowered to recall or review his own order. The petitioner further approached the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 10.02.2014 remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar to enquire once again as to genuinity in the claim of the petitioner that the land in question was earlier granted in favour of Sri.K.P.Krishnappa. Consequently, the Tahsildar has initiated the proceedings in RRTPS(A)/01/2014-15. The petitioner has called in question the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and further proceedings initiated at the hands of the Tahsildar.
5. Although notice is served on respondents No.4 and 5, they have remained unrepresented.
6. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider similar situation where either at the instance of the third party or suo-motu proceedings initiated at the hands of the revenue authorities, a revenue entry made decades ago -7- was sought to be interfered with by invoking the powers vested in the Appellate Authority i.e., Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(2) and 136(3) of the Act. This Court while noticing a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if there is no limitation prescribed for taking action, such powers could be exercised only within reasonable period. The following paragraphs are extracted from Writ Petition No.22426 of 2021 (KLR-RES), dated 12.01.2022, in the case of Smt. Pyari Ma and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others for immediate reference;
"11. In MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN /VS./ FATMABAI IBRAHIM - (1997) 6 SCC 71, it was held that suo-motu powers have to be exercised within a reasonable time. In JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT /VS./ D.NARSING RAO AND OTHERS-(2015) 3 SCC 695, it was held in paragraph 25 as follows: -8-
"The legal position is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court which have laid down that even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. This is so even in cases where allegations of fraud have necessitated the exercise of any corrective power. We may briefly refer to some of the decisions only to bring home the point that the absence of a stipulated period of limitation makes little or no difference insofar as the exercise of the power is concerned which ought to be permissible only when the power is invoked within a reasonable period.
Even in respect of the revisional jurisdiction, it was held that delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainly in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be -9- trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority."
7. In the present case also this Court finds that consequent to a registered instrument, the petitioner went before the revenue authorities seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records. Since her name was not entered in the revenue records, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Lokayukta. Thereafter, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, the name of the petitioner was entered in the land revenue records. The -10- genuinty of the grant said to have made in favour of the petitioner's vendor Sri.K.P.Krishnappa has been gone into several times by several authorities. At least on two occasions, it has been found by the Tahsildar that as per CDR No.41/1961-62 the land in question is found to have been granted in favour of Sri.K.P.Krishnappa. It was only on 02.09.1980 that there was a fire accident in the office of Tahsildar and some of the original records were destroyed. However, the Tahsildar in his order dated 06.03.2006 has furnished all relevant information stating that there were other co-relating documents to substantiate the fact that there was a grant made in favour of Sri.K.P.Krishnappa.
8. Moreover, as could be seen from the materials available on record that at least on two occasions, one at the instance of the Tahsildar, without there being any power of review that could be exercised by the authority, the earlier order dated 06.03.2006 was recalled by the Tahsildar without notice to the petitioner and on -11- 28.05.2009, the name of the petitioner was removed from the land revenue records. Similarly, the Assistant Commissioner also has recalled his earlier order dated 01.06.2009 and passed a subsequent order dated 21.05.2010. On both occasions, the action on the part of the authority is without any authority of law. There being no power of review or recall and no such power being pointed out in the impugned orders, both those orders are required to be held as arbitrary and capricious and deserve to be quashed and set aside.
9. The 4th respondent contends that she has filed an application in Form No.53 seeking regularization of her unauthorized occupation of 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.25. This application is said to have been made by the 4th respondent on 13.01.1999. The question of consideration of the application at the hands of the 4th respondent would arise only if the land is available for re-grant or regularization. It is also clear from the provisions of the -12- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 that the regularization is permissible only in respect of government land and not in respect of lands held by private individuals. By virtue of a registered instrument executed by the original grantee in favour of the petitioner and the land revenue records being mutated in the name of the petitioner, it is clear that even if an application in Form No.53 filed at the hands of the 4th respondent, the same cannot be entertained since, the land is no more government land. On the contrary, this land belonging to the petitioner herein.
10. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 10.02.2014 passed in RA No.53/2010-11 at Annexure-J and further proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar in RRTPS(A)/ 01/2014-15 at Annexure-K also deserve to be quashed and set aside.
-13-
11. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 10.02.2014
passed by the Deputy Commissioner in
R.A.No.53/2010-11 at Annexure-J, is
hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) All further proceedings in RRTPS(A)/
01/2014-15 at Annexure-K before the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar is also quashed and set aside.
(iv) The name of the petitioner shall continue in the land revenue records in respect of Sy.No.25/P-29, measuring 1 acre 37 guntas, situated at Gopasandra Village, Chintamani Taluk, unless and until any -14- order is passed by a competent civil court declaring that the petitioner is not the lawful owner of the lands.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL