Karnataka High Court
Mr A J James vs State Of Karnataka on 2 August, 2014
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NO.46071 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.1697 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Mr.A.J.James
S/o A.C.Joseph
Aged about 51 years
Residing at No.576
4th Cross, HMT Layout
R.T.Nagar
Bangalore - 32.
2. Mrs.Ancy James
W/o Mr.A.J.James
Aged about 45 years
Residing at No.576
4th Cross, HMT Layout
R.T.Nagar
Bangalore - 32.
... PETITIONERS
(By Shri.T.S.Amar Kumar for Lawyers Inc, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Through its Secretary
Department of Revenue
M.S.Building, Bangalore.
2
2. Special Deputy Commissioner
K.G.Road, Bangalore.
3. Assistant Commissioner
Bangalore North Division
Bangalore.
4. Tahasildar
Bangalore North Taluk
Yelahanka, Bangalore.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri.Kiran Kumar T.L., AGA)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash
the order dated 6th January 2011 (6.1.2011) passed
by the 2nd respondent canceling M.R.No.213/2006-07
and directing the forfeiture of the land bearing
Sy.No.376 (Old Sy.No.259/22) measuring to an extent
of 1-00 acre situated at Bettahalasur Village, Jala
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk vide Annexure-A and etc.
These petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners have assailed order dated 06.01.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore cancelling M.R.No.213/2006-07 and directing forfeiture of the land bearing Sy.No.376 (Old No.259/22) measuring 1 3 acre situated at Bettahalasur Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Annexure-A is a certified copy of that order.
2. Petitioners claim to be the owners of the aforesaid land having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 16.09.2006 from their vendors Sri.B.M.Narayanaswamy S/o.
Sri.B.G.Muniyappa, Smt.M.N.Kusuma D/o Sri.B.M.Narayanaswamy and Sri.B.N.Mohan Kumar S/o Sri.B.M.Narayanaswamy. A copy of the sale deed is produced as Annexure-B. It is stated that the aforesaid land was originally granted to one Smt.Venkatamma. According to the petitioners, an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.259/22 was leased to one Smt.Venkatamma in the year 1942 under 'Grow More Food Scheme' and saguvali chit was issued to her in the year 1951-52. She was in cultivation of the said land. There was a spot inspection of the village which was conducted on 11.10.1954 at the end of tenure of the lease and 4 thereafter, the Amildar is said to have confirmed the lease by issuance of permanent saguvali chit after making a report in that regard on 12.10.1955. It is the case of the petitioners that along with the petitioners, there were about 27 persons who were granted lands under 'Grow More Food Scheme' and that subsequent to the grant, a sketch was also prepared showing the respective grants made. Certain documents in this regard are produced at Annexures-D, E, F, G and H. According to the petitioners, Venkatamma sold the land measuring 2 acres to one B.G.Muniyappa under a registered instrument dated 06.04.1967. Thereafter, mutation proceedings in M.R.No.6/67-68 took place and the purchaser's name i.e., B.G.Muniyappa was entered in the revenue records. It is the case of the petitioners that their vendors are the children of B.G.Muniyappa and the land in question was a subject matter of Panchayath Parikat and under that, the said land had fallen to the share of the vendors of the petitioners on 5 01.03.1975 and thereafter proceedings in M.R.No.52/95-96 took place and petitioners' vendors names were entered in the revenue records. On verifying the revenue entries as well as the documents pertaining to the land in question, the petitioners purchased the aforesaid extent of land under a registered sale deed dated 16.09.2006. According to the petitioners, proceedings in M.R.No.213/2006-07 took place and those proceedings were concluded by the 4th respondent - Tahsildar after verifying the records.
3. When the matter stood thus, an application was filed by the petitioners seeking conversion of the land purchased by them under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). Even prior to that, on 21.09.2008, a report was submitted by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner. On that basis, proceedings under sub-Section 3 of Section 136 of the Act was initiated 6 against the petitioners. During the course of those proceedings the Deputy Commissioner inferred that two orders dated 31.07.2008 and 10.11.2008 made by the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Division, Bangalore were bogus orders and did not subsist and on that basis held that the order passed in M.R.No.213/06-07 in favour of the petitioners ought to be cancelled. Further a direction was issued that the petitioners' land ought to be forfeited to the State Government. That order is assailed in these Writ Petitions.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the respondents.
5. Learned AGA has also secured the original records bearing No.LND.SR2.225/60-61 which are also perused.
6. During the course of submission, it was brought to my notice by the petitioners' counsel that the inference drawn by the Deputy Commissioner that 7 the orders dated 31.07.2008 and 10.11.2008 are bogus is incorrect and that in fact, the 4th respondent
- Tahsildar had issued a communication to the effect that the records pertaining to the land in question was not available. It is based on that communication that the orders dated 31.07.2008 and 10.11.2008 were made by the Assistant Commissioner. In fact, those orders were wholly unnecessary in view of the fact that the records pertaining to the land in question were in fact available and therefore it was not necessary for the Deputy Commissioner to exercise powers under the Act. Learned Counsel pointed out that it is from the very same record, Annexures - D, E, F, G and H have been obtained by the petitioners under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, for short) and therefore, when the original records pertaining to the land in question were available, it was not necessary for the Deputy Commissioner to act upon the communication made by the Tahsildar to rebuilt the records under Section 8 67 of the Act. He also contended that it is on account of the aforesaid orders of the Assistant Commissioner which are dated 31.07.2008 and 10.11.2008 possibly a doubt was created in the mind of the Special Deputy Commissioner that the land in question was in fact not a granted land and that there were no records at all to that effect. In sum and substance, the contention of petitioners' counsel is that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have called for the records and thereafter on verification of the same should have come to the conclusion as to whether the proceedings initiated in M.R.No.213/06-07 were illegal or not and as to whether the land in question ought to be forfeited or not. Hence, submission was made that the Deputy Commissioner may be directed to reconsider the case in light of the original records that have now been secured by the 4th respondent - Tahsildar.
7. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the respondents submitted that as the petitioners failed to establish the grant made to the predecessors of their 9 vendor, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in concluding that there was no valid grant and that subsequent sale made by the petitioners' vendor was illegal and hence, direction for cancellation of the order in M.R.No.213/06-07 was justified. He contended that the burden of proving the grant is on the petitioners and they did not discharge the burden by producing the relevant documents and therefore, the impugned order would not call for any interference.
8. I have considered the submissions in light of the documents annexed to the Writ Petitions and also on perusal of the original records in file No.LND.SR2.225/06-07. These records are procured from the office of the 4th respondent - Tahsildar by learned AGA. It is noted that 4th respondent - Tahsildar on verification of those documents passed an order in favour of petitioners by directing entry of their names in the revenue records in M.R.No.213/06-
07. It is thereafter that the Tahsildar issued a 10 communication dated 21.09.2008 to the Special Deputy Commissioner for considering the matter in light of the validity of the grant and it is on that basis, proceedings under sub-Section 3 of Section 136 of the Act were commenced. Having regard to the original records which have now been produced in Court and copies of those documents which are at Annexures D, E, F, G and H, the Special Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered those documents in order to ascertain as to whether there was a valid grant or not. But the fact remains that neither copies of these documents were made available to the Special Deputy Commissioner by the petitioners nor was the original records summoned by him and therefore impugned order passed is without verifying the original records which are now very much available is incorrect and illegal. In the absence of verifying the details from the records, the Deputy Commissioner could not have come to the conclusion that the orders dated 31.07.2008 and 10.11.2008 passed by the Assistant 11 Commissioner were bogus orders. Rather a question now would as to whether there was any reason to exercise powers under sub-Section 2 of Section 67 of the Act when the records are very much available for perusal of the Deputy Commissioner. Further the 4th respondent - Tahsildar who had passed an order in favour of the petitioners in M.R.No.213/2006-07 also sent a report to the Deputy Commissioner expressing doubt about the validity of the grant. On this short ground alone, the impugned order would have to be quashed.
9. 2nd respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner or competent authority is now directed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the documents that have already been produced and other documents which have been obtained by the petitioner under RTI Act and on verification of the original record in file No.LND.SR2.225/06-07. 4th respondent is directed to transmit the records to the office of the 2nd respondent or the competent 12 authority for reconsideration of the matter in light of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. As the petitioners are represented by their counsel, they are directed to appear before the 2nd respondent or the competent authority on 15.09.2014. The petitioners are also at liberty to file additional objections or statements in the proceedings along with relevant documents, if so advised.
The proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously and at any rate on or before 01.02.2015.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, Writ Petitions stand disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Prs*