Karnataka High Court
Smt A V Prameela vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2020
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.1903/2012(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. A. V. PRAMEELA,
D/O VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O EKARAJAPURA VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE,
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE-560001
3. THE THASILDAR
HOSKOTE TALUK,
HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 13.12.2010 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, VIDE
ANNEXURE-L BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in the above writ petition has sought to quash the Order dated 13.12.2010 bearing Revision Petition No.149(3) 2006-07 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, vide Annexure-L.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, petitioner being an agriculturist by profession belonging to backward community, was in unauthorized cultivation of the land bearing Sy.No.23, measuring 3 acres 38 guntas of Ekarajapura village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru District, for the last 15 years and as such, filed an application in Form-50 as contemplated under Section 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, vide Annexure-A, before the 3 competent Authority for regularization of unauthorized cultivation of the land, i.e., the Tahsildar, Hosakote, who is the Secretary of the Land Grant Committee, i.e., the Committee constituted for the regularization of the unauthorized cultivation of the land in Hosakote Taluk. The petitioner's application was received by the Tahsildar, Hosakote in No. LND RUC 6130/1991092 dated 19.09.1991, vide Annexure-B. After receipt of the application, the Tahsildar entered the same in the register maintained with regard to the receipt of the applications in Form-50 for regularization of unauthorized cultivation received in the particular year, vide Annexure-C. The shara indicates that the land is regularized in LND RUC SR 225/92-93.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that the Tahsildar, Hosakote, being the Secretary of the committee for regularization of unauthorized cultivation, issued notice, conducted enquiry and after verifying the 4 correctness and bonafides of the application, conducted preliminary enquiry and placed the same before the Committee for necessary orders. The Committee constituted for regularization of unauthorized cultivation, passed the resolution regularizing the unauthorized cultivation of the land in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 3 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No.23 of Ekarajapura village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk. The order passed by the Committee was forwarded to the Tahsildar for the purpose of issue of saguvali chit. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, being the secretary of the committee, after receipt of the order from the Committee, issued saguvali chit dated 15.05.1999 in favour of the petitioner, vide Annexure-D. In pursuance of the regularization made in favour of the petitioner and the saguvali chit issued, the revenue authorities, entered the name of the petitioner in the revenue records including the mutation register in MR No.29/2005-06, vide Annexure-E. The petitioner's 5 name was also entered in column No.9 and column No.12 of the RTC, from 1994-95 till 2010-11 as absolute owner and person in cultivation of the property in question, vide Annexure-F. Thereafter, the concerned village accountant entered the name of the petitioner in the patta book, vide Annexure-G. The petitioner also paid tax in respect of the property in question for the years 2009-10, 2010-11, vide Annexures-H and J.
4. When things stood thus, the 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner, very strangely, issued notice under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, calling upon the petitioner to produce the records. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and filed objections by producing the documents and requested to drop the proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner, proceeded to pass the impugned Order vesting the land with the State Government, by canceling the grant and the khatha on 6 the ground that the saguvali chit issued in favour of the petitioner is bogus one. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.
5. Though the above writ petition is filed in the year 2012, till today, the respondent-State Government has not filed any objections.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very initiation of the proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, after lapse of 6 years from the date of regularization of the land in question is not maintainable and therefore, the impugned Order is passed without jurisdiction. He further contended that the Deputy Commissioner has not initiated suo-motu proceedings within a reasonable 7 period. As the provisions of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, does not specify any specific limitation for initiation of proceedings, the authorities ought to have exercised suo-motu power within a reasonable period of three yeas, as held by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again.
8. He further contended that though all the documents were produced by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to allow the Revision Petition and vested the land in question with the Government, only on technicality. The Deputy Commissioner has ignored the documents produced by the petitioner as per Annexures-A to J, which are issued by the competent revenue authorities during the course of their official business presumption has to be drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the 8 absence of any contra material produced by the State Government, so also, in the absence of any objections denying the averments made in the writ petition, adverse inference has to be drawn against the State Government.
9. Learned counsel further contended that, in pursuance of the amended provisions of Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, the land less persons are allowed to file application for regularization with an intention to provide land to such persons. The six members of the regularization committee considered the application and the jurisdictional Tahsildar, after satisfying the grant made, issued the saguvali chit. Accordingly, the petitioner's name was entered in the mutation register and the RTC. Presumption has to be drawn under Section 133 of the 9 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
10. Per contra, Sri T.L.Kiran Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and sought to question the genuineness of each and every document produced by the petitioner in the present writ petition as per Annexures-A to H, and contended that they are bogus and therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
11. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the Deputy Commissioner is justified in initiating proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in respect of the property in question, when the property was regularized by the Committee 10 constituted under the provisions of Section 94(A) of the said Act, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?"
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that she was in unauthorized cultivation of the land bearing Sy.No.23, measuring 3 acres 38 guntas situated at Ekarajapura village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru District, for the last 15 years and in view of the amended provisions of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, filed an application in Form- 50 as contemplated under Section 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, for regularization of the land. The petitioner has filed the acknowledgment issued by the concerned authority for having received the application for regularization filed by the petitioner. Annexure-C is the copy of the extract showing the details of Form 50 received in the office of the Tahsildar, Hosakote Taluk, wherein at 11 Sl.No.6130/91-92, the name of the petitioner is shown and in the shara column it is mentioned that the land is regularized in LND RUC SR 225/92-93. In pursuance of the regularization of the land in question, the Tahsildar issued Saguvali chit dated 15.05.1999 and has put the seal in the prescribed form, both on the front side and back side. The mutation was also entered in M.R.No.29/2005-2006, dated 28.02.2006, wherein, it is specifically stated that the mutation has been made as per the Order No. LND RUC SR 225/92- 93 dated 01.12.1999.
13. In pursuance of the mutation, the jurisdictional revenue authorities also issued RTC in respect of the property in question in favour of the petitioner from 1994-95 till 2010-11, wherein, at both column Nos. 9 and 12 (i.e., owners and cultivators column), the name of the petitioner is shown. The said documents have presumptive values under Section 133 of the Karnataka 12 Land Revenue Act, 1964. In pursuance of the regularization and saguvali chit issued, the authorities have also issued patta and receipt book, wherein, the particulars of the property in question has been mentioned and tax is collected during the years 2009-10 and 2011-12, as per Annexures-H and J. All these documents produced as per Annexures-A to J are issued by the revenue authorities, during the course of their official business and have presumptive value under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
14. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2012 and we are in 2020, even after lapse of 8 years, the assertion made by the petitioner on oath and the documents produced before this Court are not disputed by the respondent-State Government by filing any objections or by producing any contra material. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the documents produced by the petitioner are 13 bogus and concocted, this Court resisted to accept the said contention as the documents produced by the petitioner are issued by the revenue authorities under the official capacity. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate disputed each and every document, the fact remains that the State Government has not challenged the regularization made in favour of the petitioner, except contending that the saguvali chit and the grant made in favour of the petitioner are bogus and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief before this Court. It is unfortunate that though the petitioner produced several documents to show the application filed for regularization, order of regularization, issuance of saguvali chit and the impugned order has been passed after lapse of 6 years, the said material documents have been ignored and the same cannot be sustained.
14
15. During the course of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner furnished the original documents for the perusal of the Court, viz.,
(i) the receipt dated 19.09.1991 having the seal of the Tahsildar,
(ii) copy of the objections filed before the Deputy Commissioner,
(iii) original saguvali chit,
(iv) original RTC, extract of Form-50 and patta receipt book.
16. In view of the allegation made by the learned Additional Government Advocate regarding genuineness of the documents, this Court carefully verified the said documents. It clearly indicates that they are issued by the revenue authorities during the course of their official business. Therefore, they have presumptive value under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the documents produced by the petitioner are bogus, cannot be accepted. 15
17. It is relevant to state at this stage that, inspite of these documents, it is unfortunate that the Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, proceeded to initiate proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Ignoring the aforesaid documents produced by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a finding that the documents are not available in the record room. It is relevant to note that petitioner is not the custodian of the revenue records and the jurisdictional Tahsildar is the custodian of the revenue records and he ought to have placed the records before the Deputy Commissioner. When the petitioner produced the original records before the Court, what prevented the Tahsildar to produce the same before the Deputy Commissioner is not forthcoming and it clearly depicts that the revenue authorities have not discharged the institutional responsibility under the provisions of 16 the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and constitutional obligation as trustees of the Society.
18. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is enacted to perform the duties of the revenue authorities based on the source of title of the parties. Unfortunately, time and again, this Court has experienced that revenue authorities are misusing the provisions of the Act and are unnecessarily harassing the general public. To accept the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate, it has to be noted that a person like the petitioner who applies for regularization cannot create all the documents like the resolution of the committee for regularization, saguvali chit, mutation register, RTC etc., It is humanly impossible for a person to create such documents who has no access to the original records. It is the Tahsildar, Assistant commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner who are custodian of the documents. 17 Unnecessarily blaming the petitioner is nothing but an effort to deprive the petitioner of her valuable rights in respect of immovable property. The very initiation of the proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner after lapse of six years is unreasonable, impermissible and cannot be encouraged to deprive the valuable rights of the petitioner in respect of immovable property which is in violation of the provisions of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India.
19. It is well settled that in the absence of any limitation prescribed under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have time and again held that reasonable period for initiation of action under the Act, would be three years. Admittedly, in the present case, initiation of proceedings is made after lapse of six years, which cannot be sustained. 18
20. It is well settled that, the authorities acting under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, are under constitutional duty coupled with power. Every public servant is a trustee of the society and in all facets of public administration, every public servant has to exhibit honesty, integrity, sincerity and faithfulness in implementation of the political, social, economic and constitutional policies to integrate the nation, to achieve excellence and efficiency in the public administration. A public servant entrusted with duty and power to implement constitutional policy under Articles 14, 21 and 300A and all inter-related directive principles of state policy under the Constitution, should exhibit transparency in implementation and of accountable for due effectuation of constitutional goals.
21. In the present case, the way in which the authorities have acted and proceeded to initiate the 19 proceedings depicts that they have not acted as trustees of the Society.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in an identical circumstances in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Another -vs- D. Narsing Rao and Others reported in (2015)3 SCC 695 relying upon the dictum in the case of State of Gujarat -vs- Patil Raghav Natha reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187 while considering the provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, held that:-
"Though there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211 to revise an order made under Section 65 of the Act, the said power must be exercised in reasonable time and on the facts of the case in which the decision arose, the power came to be exercised more than one year after the order and that was held to be too late."
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, in the case 20 of Santoshkumar Shivgond Patil -vs- Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale reported in (2009)9 SCC 352 at para-11 has held that:-
"It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a lapse of long time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein. In the said case, the reasonable period within which the power of revision would be exercised was three years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to the exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years is not a 21 reasonable time. Invocation of revisional power by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse of process in the facts and circumstances of the case assuming that the order of the Tahsildar passed on 30.3.1976 is flawed and legally not correct."
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 527 has held that actions must be taken within reasonable time, where no period of limitation specified - even while dealing with beneficial legislations, rights accrued by third persons cannot be ignored lightly where no period of limitation prescribed and actions initiated after delay and at paragraphs-9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 it has been held as under:
"9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that the delay must be overlooked because the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to 22 bring relief to farmers who had been dispossessed during the proscribed period. The reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.C. Padma, (2003) 7 SCC 713 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1709] , where this Court held that in a motor accident which took place on 18-12-1989, a claim petition barred by time but filed on 2- 11-1995, after limitation itself was removed from the statute was maintainable. This Court held that there could be no resort to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 even though no period of limitation was prescribed. Accordingly, the Court held that the claim petition could not be rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation, after the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which had provided a period of six months. This view was taken having regard to the purpose of the statute. We, however, find that the judgment relied on has no application to the present case. It is a settled law where the statute does not provide for a period of limitation, the 23 provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time.
10. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn., "reasonable time" is explained as follows:
"That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not to suffer."
Thus, time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve rights and advantages a party possesses, but equally to protect each party from the losses he ought not to suffer. Thus, whether an action has been taken within a reasonable time, must also be viewed from the point of view of the party who might suffer losses.
11. In the instant case, we find that the High Court had observed as follows:
"The auction-sale took place in 1942, the application for restoration of the lands was first made in 1975 24 and the appeal from it was dismissed for default in 1983. In the meanwhile, the disputed lands changed hands twice and were in the possession of the appellant-writ petitioners from 1962 and 1986.
Such a long-settled position could only be upset for some very compelling reasons and on making out an extremely strong case for restoration of the appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest anything remotely like that.
Secondly, the action of the Additional Collector in restoring the appeal even without any notice to the appellant- writ petitioners was clearly illegal and in contravention of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act."
The High Court was clearly right in the view it had taken.
12. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that power of the Additional Collector for restoration of lands could have been 25 exercised suo motu and since no limitation was prescribed for exercise of such power, the delay in this case may be overlooked. This submission presupposes that where the power can be exercised suo motu, such exercise may be undertaken at any time. The submission is directly contrary to a decision of this Court in Collector v. D. Narsing Rao[Collector v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 396] where this Court affirmed the view [Collector v. D. Narasing Rao, 2010 SCC Online AP 406 :
(2010) 6 ALD 748] of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Para '17' of the judgment reads as follows: (D. Narsing Rao case [Collector v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 396] , SCC p.
706, para 17) "17. ... that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law."
26Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention.
13. In our view, where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo motu or on the application of the parties, within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, what is reasonable time would depend on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the statute. In the case before us, we are clear that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time, particularly, in view of the fact that the land was transferred several times during this period, obviously, in the faith that it is not encumbered by any rights.
14. We are of the view that merely because the legislation is beneficial and no limitation is prescribed, the rights acquired by persons cannot be ignored lightly and proceedings cannot be initiated after unreasonable delay as observed by this Court in Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand[Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 8 SCC 340] .
27
25. For the reasons stated above, the point framed for consideration in the present writ petition has to be answered in the negative holding that the Deputy Commissioner is not justified in initiating proceedings under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, when the property in dispute was regularized by the Committee constituted under the provisions of Section 94(A) of the said Act, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
26. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 13.12.2010 passed in Revision Petition No.149 (3) 2006-07 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, vide Annexure-L, is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm