Karnataka High Court
Sri Krishnappa vs Deputy Commissioner on 10 June, 2019
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.16041/2010(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN
1. SRI KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2. MUNIREDDY @ REDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
3. H.R.GOWDA
@ RAMANJANAPPA
AGED 39 YEARS,
ALL ARE SONS OF
LATE HANUME GOWDA
AGRICULTURISTS,
R/O NAGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DIST. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R CHANDRANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
BANGALORE
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
-2-
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE
3. THE TAHSILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
DEVANAHALLI
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
4. CHIKKAMUTHAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
4(a) SRI GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
4(b) SMT.NARAYANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
4(c) SRI NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
4(D) SMT.MOOGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE
CHIKKAMUTHAPPA
RESIDENTS OF CHANNARAYAPATNA
VILLAGE & HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.10.2017)
5. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE DODDAMUTHAPPA
MAJOR
6. SRI. MUNIYAPPA @ BAJJAPPA
MAJOR,
(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS)
-3-
7. MYLARAPPA
S/O KENCHAPPA
MAJOR,
8. SRI. NARAYANAPPA
S/O KENCHAPPA
MAJOR,
9. SRI. GANGA
MAJOR,
S/O CHIKKA MUTHAPPA
10. SRI NARAYANAPPA
MAJOR,
S/O CHIKKA MURTHAPPA
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 10 ARE
RESIDENTS OF
CHANNARAYAPATNA VILLAGE
& HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI MOHANCHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VIKRAM BALAJI & SRI BASAVARAJ.P.S, ADVOCATES FOR
R5 TO R10
R4(a) to (d) ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2010 MADE IN REVISION
PETITION NO.43/2006-07 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
(ANNEXURE A) AND THE ORDER DATED 5.12.2003 MADE IN
CASE NO. 203/2001-02 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
(ANNEXURE-B).
-4-
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners herein, who are the sons of late Hanume Gowda and residents of Naganayakanahalli village, Channarayapatna hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, have come up in this writ petition impugning the concurrent finding rendered by respondent No.2, namely, Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura sub-division, Bengaluru, and respondent No.1, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, in setting aside the mutation entries in M.R. / M.T. No.7/83-84 and M.R./ R.R. No.85, which stood in the name of their father, Sri Hanume Gowda, with reference to land measuring to an extent of 05 Acres 12 guntas in Sy. No.7 situate at Gokhare Bachenahalli village, Channarayapatna hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
2. The records would indicate that the revenue entries were created in respect of the land measuring to an -5- extent of 05 Acres 12 guntas in Sy. No.7 situate at Gokhare Bachenahalli village in the name of Sri Hanume Gowda, the father of petitioners herein, as if he had purchased the said land from Sri Chikkagangappa, son of Gangappa. The proceedings before the Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk, does not mention the date and document number of the sale deed under which Sri Hanume Gowda secured title to the land in question. Annexure 'C' to the petition is typed copy of the relevant page of the register containing details regarding record of rights and title with reference to lands situate in Gokhare Bachenahalli village as well as Form No.5 maintained by the office of Tahasildar, Channapatna Taluk, wherein at janjar No.85, there is reference to mutation entry vide M.T. No.7/83-84 effected with reference to land in Sy. No. 7 (measuring 05 Acres 12 guntas) of Gokhare Bachenahalli as if the same was purchased by Sri Hanume Gowda from Sri Chikkagangappa, son of Gangappa.
3. The mutation orders vide M.R./M.T. No.7/83-84 and M.R./R.R No.85 passed by Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk, were the subject matter of challenge in Appeal No.203/2001- -6- 02 initiated under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by the original respondent No.4 herein and respondent Nos.5 to 10 herein, before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura sub-division, Bengaluru. In the said proceedings, it is recorded that the notice dated 14.03.2002 to respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein (petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein) was sent through Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk. Assistant Commissioner has relied upon the report bearing C.R No.248/2001-02 dated 24.04.2002 submitted by Tahasildar to the effect that when he went to serve the notice on respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein, they refused to receive the notice/s, which were returned as unserved, and has placed the said respondents ex parte.
4. The appellants (original respondent No.4 herein and respondent Nos.5 to 10 herein) in the said appeal before the Assistant Commissioner claimed to be the lineal descendants of Chikkagangappa, son of Gangappa, who was the owner of the land in question i.e., 05 Acres 12 guntas of land in Sy. No.7. It was contended that after the death of Chikkagangappa, the appellants continued in possession and -7- enjoyment of the said land and they claimed to have share in the said land. It was further contended that respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein (petitioners herein) had no manner of right, title or interest in respect of the said land and neither Chikkagangappa nor themselves had alienated the said property in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein. It was alleged that respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein had concocted the documents and got mutated the said land in the name of their father, Sri Hanume Gowda, vide M.R./ M.T. No.7/83-84. They sought for setting aside the mutation entries standing in the name of Sri Hanume Gowda and to enter their names in the revenue records in respect of land in question. They further alleged that Tahasildar without verifying the records and conducting inspection had effected the said mutation entries in favour of Sri Hanume Gowda.
5. The Assistant Commissioner considering the contentions of the appellants and the documents produced by them, has observed that in column No.9 of the RTC., extracts, the name of Sri Chikkagangappa was shown as khatedar of the land measuring to an extent of 05 Acres 12 guntas in Sy. -8- No.7 and in akarband and tippani, the name of Sri Talawara Chikkagangappa was shown as karta in respect of the land in question. The Assistant Commissioner has referred to receipt bearing No.052521 dated 22.09.1968 under which Gangappa had paid kandayam of Rs.300/- to the Government. Having regard to the said documents, Assistant Commissioner opined that the land in question originally belonged to Chikkagangappa and after his death, appellants being the lineal descendants of Chikkagangappa, continued in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Neither the appellants nor their ancestors had executed any sale deed in favour of Sri Hanume Gowda. The Tahasildar before effecting mutation entry/ies in respect of the land in question in favour of Sri Hanume Gowda, the father of respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein, had not issued notice to appellants therein and had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Accordingly, Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the appellants, who are the original respondent No.4 herein and respondent Nos.5 to 10 herein, by setting aside mutation -9- entries in M.R. No.7/83-84 and M.R. No.85, which stood in the name of Sri Hanume Gowda, the father of respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein (petitioners herein). It was ordered that names of respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein and their ancestors shall be deleted from the revenue documents viz., khata, RTC, Index of Lands, Record of Rights in respect of the land in question. While doing so, the Assistant Commissioner has directed Tahasildar to register the names of all the seven appellants (original respondent No.4, respondent Nos.5 to 10 herein) in the pahani records in respect of the land in question.
6. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was the subject matter of challenge in Revision Petition No.43/2006-07 initiated under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by the petitioners herein before the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner. In the said proceedings, revision petitioners pointed out that they had filed suit in O.S. No.1647/2006 before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Devanahalli, in respect of the land in question and the same was pending consideration. Revision petitioners contended that the land in question belonged to their father,
- 10 -
Hanume Gowda, and after his death, they continued in possession of the said land. Revision petitioners claimed that they were not served with notice in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and contended that the Assistant Commissioner had erroneously relied upon the report of Tahasildar stating that they had refused to receive notice and conducted proceedings in Appeal No.203/2001-02 in their absence and without giving them opportunity of hearing, proceeded to pass order dated 05.12.2003 based on the contentions put forth by the appellants therein.
7. In the proceedings before the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner though sufficient opportunity was given to revision petitioners, they were not able to demonstrate the nature of title to the property in question and also they were not in a position to produce the relevant sale deed under which their father, Hanume Gowda, secured title to the said property. It is in this background, revision petition which was filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein came to be rejected by the first respondent by order dated 22.03.2010. Hence, petitioners are before this Court.
- 11 -
8. This matter was heard at length in the presence of learned counsel, Sri R. Chandranna, appearing for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel, Sri Mohanchandra, appearing on behalf of Sri Vikram Balaji and Sri Basavaraj P.S., learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 10 at length. Respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(d) though served with notice, have remained unrepresented. Perused the material on record.
9. In this proceedings, this Court granted several adjournments at the request of learned counsel, Sri R.Chandranna, appearing for petitioners to enable him to produce the sale deed said to have executed by Sri Chikkagangappa in favour of Sri Hanume Gowda, the father of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein, based on which, mutation entries vide M.R. / M.T. No.7/83-84 and M.R./ R.R. No.85 were effected in favour of Sri Hanume Gowda and in spite of sufficient opportunity being given, the said sale deed is not produced. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that in fact there was sale deed executed in favour of Sri Hanume
- 12 -
Gowda by Sri Chikkagangappa or original respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.5 to 10 herein at any point of time. Learned counsel for petitioners was not even able to secure the encumbrance certificate issued by the competent authority to demonstrate that at some point of time, the land measuring 05 Acres 12 guntas in Sy. No.7 was in fact conveyed in favour of Sri Hanume Gowda by Sri Chikkagangappa or his legal heirs or any person claiming under him. In the absence of any such document, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that their father, Sri Hanume Gowda, was the owner of the aforesaid property having acquired the same under alleged sale deed executed in his favour by Sri Chikkagangappa, based on which, mutation entry in M.R. / M.T. No.7/1983-84 and M.R / R.R. No.85 were effected in his name.
10. In the fact situation, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate that they have any semblance of any right to the land in question and consequently, to demonstrate that the mutation entries vide M.R / M.T. No.7/83-84 and M.R./ R.R. No.85,
- 13 -
which were effected in the name of Sri Hanume Gowda as per the order of Tahasildar, Devanahalli Taluk, and which were subsequently set aside by the impugned orders, are required to be restored in their name.
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma