Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 October, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION NO.24303 OF 2012 (KLR-LG)
AND WRIT PETITION NO.27447 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Nagesh,
S/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at Bagalur Village,
Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
2. Smt.Sharadamma,
W/o Late Muniraju,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at Bagalur Village,
Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. ... Petitioners
(By Sri P.M.Siddamallappa, Advocate for
M/s Mylaraiah Associates, Advocates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building, Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
For Bangalore North and
2
Bangalore (Additional)
North Taluk,
Bangalore.
3. The Tahasildar,
Bangalore North (Additional)
Taluk, Yelahanka,
Bangalore. .... Respondents
(By Sri Shashidhar S Karamadi, HCGP)
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner/R2 dated 7.2.2012
in case No.RRT(2)N(A) CR 229/2009-10 and RRT(2)N(A)
CR.230/2009-10 vide Annexure- E, etc., .
These petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing
in 'B' group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have raised the challenge to the order, dated 07.02.2012 (Annexure-E) passed by the second respondent Special Deputy Commissioner directing the deletion of the petitioners' name in the revenue records in respect of the lands measuring 20 guntas standing at Sy.No.177/P-17 of Bagalur Village. 3
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the land measuring 16 acres at Sy.No.177/P-17 of Bagalur Village was granted to one Subbaramaiah in 1949-50. Thereafter, portions of the property changed hands based on the sales, etc., As of now, the petitioners are the recorded owners of the land measuring 20 guntas. The third respondent Tahsildar placed the matter before the second respondent Special Deputy Commissioner reporting that the land in question is a gomal land and that no grant certificates are available. The Special Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order holding that there is no record to show that the land is granted to Subbaramaiah.
3. Sri P.M.Siddamallappa appearing for M/s.Mylaraiah Associates for the petitioners submits that the same official had held in the case of a portion of the land standing at Sy.No.177/P-17 that it was granted to Sri B.N.Subbaramaiah on 20.03.1950 and thereby 4 dropped the proceedings initiated in Case No.RRT(2)N(A)CR.222/ 2009-10 in respect of the land measuring 5 acres standing at Sy.No.177/P-17.
4. Sri Siddamallappa submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner has thus arrived at conflicting conclusions based on the same set of facts.
5. Sri Shashidhar S.Karmadi, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the proceedings came to be dropped in Case No. No.RRT(2)N(A)CR.222/2009-10, as the extract of the index of land records and other documents were produced. In the instant case, no such documents were produced.
6. The extracts of the index of the land records etc., are not the title deeds. The parent deed in this case has got to be the grant certificate or the saguvali chit. In RRT(2)N(A)CR.222/2009-10, the Special Deputy 5 Commissioner has sent his office personnel to the Taluk Office for verifying the records. The order further states that he has himself visited the said office on 14.03.2012 and that he is satisfied that the land measuring 16 acres at Sy.No.177/P-17 was granted to B.N.Subbaramaiah vide grant Order No.ML.74/49-50, dated 20.03.1950.
7. The petitioners' lands measuring 20 guntas form part of the aforesaid 16 acres. Therefore, if the grant order is held to be valid in RRT(2)N(A)CR.222/2009-10, it cannot be said that there is no grant order in RRT(2)N(A)CR.224/2009-10. Just as the Special Deputy Commissioner has visited the Taluk Office for ascertaining the availability/existence of the grant order in the original records in RRT(2)N(A)CR.222/2009-10, he ought to have done the same thing in this case too. 6
8. In the result, these petitions are allowed. The impugned order is quashed. As of now, the Special Deputy Commissioner in RRT(2)N(A)CR.222/2009-10 has recorded his satisfaction, on verification of the original records, that the grant order does exist in respect of 16 acres at Sy.No.177/P-17. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to remand the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner. However, if any fresh evidence crops up raising the cloud on the genuineness of the grant, it is always open to the respondents to issue fresh notice to the petitioners and hold the enquiry in accordance with law and in a manner known to law.
9. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-