Karnataka High Court
Smt Thimmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION NO.22112 OF 2012 (KLR)
BETWEEN :
1. SMT.THIMMAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGE: 65 YEARS
2. SRI.THIMMAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGE: 35 YEARS
3. SRI.MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGE: 30 YEARS
4. SRI.MUTHURAJ
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGE: 27 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A BHOOTANAHALLI
VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK - 560 083 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.INDUMATHI, ADV. FOR SRI.P.KRISHNAPPA, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY
2
2. THE SPL. DY. COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE
3. THE TAHASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL
BANGALORE URBAN DIST. - 560 083 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.B.SATYANARAYAN SINGH, ADV.)
---
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
1.4.2010 passed by the R2 vide Ann-K and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following
ORDER
The petitioners have raised the challenge to the order, dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure-K) passed by the 2nd respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner.
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner has directed the rounding off of the names of the petitioners in respect of the land measuring 24 guntas at Sy.No.67/P69 of Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk.
3. Smt.Indumathi, the learned counsel appearing for Sri.P.Krishnappa for the petitioners submits that the land 3 measuring 4 acres 24 guntas at Sy.No.67 was granted to one Durgaiah in the year 1960. On the demise of Durgaiah, a partition took place between his two sons viz. Kallaiah and Thimmaiah. The land measuring 24 guntas of the said survey number fell to the share of Thimmaiah, who sold it to his namesake, Thimmaiah, the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Even when the saguvali chit is produced before the Special Deputy Commissioner, he has directed that the land be shown as the Government forest land in the records. She submits that Thimmaiah, under whom the petitioners claim, is a bonafide purchaser of the lands from the legal representative of the original grantee. Their names cannot be deleted from the revenue records in respect of the land in question.
4. She has also filed IA No.1/12 producing a copy of the grant order as Annexure-M. It is relevant for the adjudication of the questions falling for consideration in this case. It is pursuant to the said grant order that the Tahsildar has issued the saguvali chit, a copy of which 4 was produced before the Special Deputy Commissioner, as is evident from the impugned order itself. I allow IA No.1/2012.
5. Sri R.B.Sathyanarayan Singh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the entire land at Sy.No.67 has been a Government land from 1934. That land could not have been granted at all. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of this writ petition.
6. For disposing of this case, the decision of this Court in the case of KUNNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. reported in 2012 (1) KLJ 28 is of immense assistance. It is held therein that the power conferred by Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is exercisable only for correcting the revenue entries. If the land-grant has to be cancelled, it has to be done in independent proceedings. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said decision are extracted hereinbelow:
"21. The power under Section 136(3) of the Act is only for correcting the revenue entries 5 based on the action taken by the Tahsildar either under Section 127 or under Section 129 of the Act. Neither the Tahsildar nor the Revisional Authority have any power to characterize the quality of the transaction based on which entries have been made. As to whether the order based on which some entry whether took place or not in the year 1972 as claimed by the writ petitioners and not a real entry but a false entry even as submitted by Sri Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate, as it is submitted that two sets of entries are found in the revenue records, is a question not merely confining to the correctness or otherwise of entry made by the Tahsildar under Section 127 or 129 of the Act, but goes much beyond the scope of these two provisions. In fact, in the present order, the Deputy Commissioner based on whatever information that either he got from the Tahsildar or further verification of the information, has gone ahead further not only to annul the earlier order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner purporting to be under Section 5 of the Inams Act, but also has directed resumption of the land and for consequential directions being issued to the Tahsildar.6
22. Such actions obviously go far beyond the scope of the power under Section 136(3) of the Act. While it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to go into the question of correctness or otherwise of the grant order, whether it is forged, fabricated or petitioners have overreached the provisions of law and if any revenue authority has been manipulated and orders brought about, they are all matters which could have been independently examined and corrective action taken under the appropriate enabling provision of law. For the present purpose, it is suffice to observe that Section 136(3) of the Act does not enable such actions to be taken purporting to exercise revisional jurisdiction for correction of a mere revenue entry."
7. The rounding off of the names in the revenue records is certainly permissible, if there is no grant order at all. But, on the ground that the land in question could not have been granted, the names of the present khatedars cannot be rounded off. If the lands in question are forest lands and they came to be illegally granted to the petitioners' predecessors-in-title viz, Durgaiah, the 7 land grant has to be invalidated or cancelled in separate proceedings and in a manner known to law.
8. For yet another reason too, the impugned order is unsupportable and unsustainable. The Special Deputy Commissioner has not taken into account the relevant materials. The order itself reveals that a copy of the saguvali chit, dated 10.12.1960 issued by the Tahsildar was produced. Though the Special Deputy Commissioner refers to that, there is no discussion about that.
9. For the two aforesaid reasons, I allow this petition by quashing the impugned order. The Special Deputy Commissioner is directed to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Special Deputy Commissioner on 27.12.2012. The petitioners are permitted to produce the grant order, dated 10.12.1960. The Special Deputy Commissioner shall verify the documents, being produced by the petitioners, with reference to the originals in the Tahsildar's office and pass fresh order as expeditiously as 8 possible and in any case within an outer limit of four months from 27.12.2012. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV