Karnataka High Court
N Venkata Reddy S/O. V Narayanappa vs The State Of Karnataka Secretary To Land ... on 10 July, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. L. MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.4328/2009 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SHRI.N.VENKATA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O V.NARAYANAPPA,
ITKALPURA VILLAGE, HESARGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SECRETARY TO LAND REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
(RURAL), K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
ABOLITION OF INAMS,
BANGALORE CIRCLE, BANGALORE.
4. THE TAHASILDAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.KESHAVA REDDY, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.2837/2009(KLR-RR/SUR) DATED 17/06/2009.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, K.L. MANJUNATH, J. DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Questioning the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2837/2009 dated 17.6.2009, the appellant is before this Court.
2. Heard Sri Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The appellant aggrieved by the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District dated 15.12.2008 in case No.RRT (2) CR.233/1995-96 had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. It is the specific case of the appellant that his father Narayanappa was cultivating the Inam land measuring 4 acres 17 guntas in survey No.50 of Ittakallalpura 3 Village in Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk. The said land had been re-granted to his father late Narayanappa by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition on 31.12.1966 in Case No.300/1959-60. It is also his case that his father was enjoying the said land as an absolute owner pursuant to the order of re-grant.
4. It is also the case of the appellant that at the instance on an unanimous petition, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore had initiated proceedings in Case No.RRT(2)CR.233/95-96 and the then Special Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 29.3.2006 held that the land was re-granted to the appellant's father and there is no fabrication of records and revenue entries are to be continued in the name of the appellant as the legal representative of late Narayanappa.
5. It is the specific case of the appellant that subsequently, the Special Deputy Commissioner re- opened the case exercising his power vested under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in case 4 No.RRT (2)CR.233/95-96 and came to the conclusion that the earlier order passed by the previous Deputy Commissioner suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and if the said order is remained in operation, the same would result in abuse of the process of the court as it causes mis-carriage of justice and case has to be re-opened. Accordingly, the case was re-opened by the Special Deputy Commissioner and issued a notice to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why the revenue records shall not be changed to the name of the Government since no land was re-granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition on 31.12.1966 and also contending that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 31.12.1966 is concocted and got up and it is not a genuine order.
6. Pursuant to the notice received by the appellant, the appellant sent a detailed reply contending that the land in question was re-granted to his father by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition on 31.12.1966 and the said order is not a concocted or 5 got up one. It was also contended that no error was committed by the earlier Deputy Commissioner to re- open the case exercising the inherent powers vested under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Accordingly, he requested the Special Deputy Commissioner to drop the proceedings.
7. The Special Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition dated 31.12.1966 is got up and created and no such re-grant was actually made by the then Special Deputy Commissioner.
8. Considering the various entries recorded in different registers of the Revenue Office, he held that all entries are bogus in nature and the land in question is a Gomal land and cannot be considered as an Inam land relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of State of Karnataka through the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga and another Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and another, reported in 1995(5) KLJ 305A, 6 he came to the conclusion that the earlier order of the Special Deputy Commissioner suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be allowed to remain in operation; and as such the order would take away the valuable property of the Government. Accordingly, the earlier order was recalled and directed the Tahsildar to change the revenue records to the name of the State.
9. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge having heard the parties and considering the arguments advanced by both the parties confirmed the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner holding that the land in question was not re-granted to the appellant's father and the documents relied upon by the appellant are got up and concocted. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be dismissed. In the circumstances, the present appeal is filed.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also secured the records from the 7 Government Advocate. We have also perused the order said to have been passed by the then Special Deputy Commissioner on 31.12.1966 passed in case No.300/1959-60. On perusal of Annexure-'C' the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, it is clear to us that it is not an order passed while considering the application for grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. On Perusal of the entire order, it shows as if the Deputy Commissioner was considering the genuineness of the sale transaction in respect of a Gomal land. A Gomal land cannot be the subject matter of tenancy in order to consider the order of re- grant. Even if the Gomal land was given to Jodidar as an Inam, on account of the Abolition of Inams, the land has been vested in the Government and the land can be granted to a person who is not holding and cultivating the land.
11. It is not the case of the appellant that his father had purchased the gomal land from the Jodidar and that he was entitled for an order of re-grant. When 8 it is not the case of the appellant that his father had purchased the gomal land and when it is the specific case of the appellant that the land in question has been re-granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore is not concerning the application for re-grant. On the face of it, it reveals the said order has no application to the facts of the case and that the same is concocted.
12. On perusal of the records we have also seen that the appellant had filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, for grant of occupancy rights by filing Form No.7 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in respect of the very same land. If the father of the appellant had been re-granted the above said land by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, the question of making the application again in respect of the very same land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act does not arise at all. Because, if the land had been re-granted to his father under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, the 9 question of granting occupancy rights on the very same land as a tenant under the Land Reforms Act does not arise at all. This shows the conduct of the appellant and it further fortifies that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition was not at all in existence on the date of filing of the application in Form No.7. If really an order of re-grant was there, there was no necessity or occasion for the appellant to make an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the very same land. In the circumstances, if the Special Deputy Commissioner has set-aside the order of the earlier order passed by the previous Deputy Commissioner, this court cannot interfere with the same.
13. The scope of Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge is very very limited. If there is an error on the face of the record, this court can certainly interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. If the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffers from any error, we cannot interfere with the well 10 reasoned order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has bestowed his attention to consider all the points canvassed by the appellant. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal.
In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PL