Karnataka High Court
Sri.Bhimasethu Munivrunda Mutt vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:40948
WP No. 24350 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 24350 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.BHIMASETHU MUNIVRUNDA MUTT
BHIMANAKATTE MULUBAVILU VILLAGE
DOORVASAPURAM POST
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 577 432
REPRESENTED BY ITS
POA/SECRETARY/DIWAN
SRI SAGAR BHAT
S/O HARISH KUMAR P.S.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
NO. 25/1, RAGHUNANDANA
NEAR BHIMANAKATTE RAGHAVENDRA
SWAMY MUTT
VENKATAGIRIYAPPA LAYOUT
Digitally signed
DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA
by CHAITHRA A BENGALURU - 560 097
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. KESHAV V. DATAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
ROOM NO.505, 5TH FLOOR
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:40948
WP No. 24350 of 2024
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION
BALARAJ URS ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION
BALARAJ URS ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
LAND RECORDS
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA .A.S, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO SURVEY AND PODI THE SCHEDULE
PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DTD 27.12.2023 BEARING
NO. RRT O RR CR/133/2023 (138801) PASSED BY THE R-3
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:40948
WP No. 24350 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
In the captioned petition, petitioner is alleging inaction on the part of the respondents in not conducting survey and phodi in the schedule property in terms of order dated 27.12.2023 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.
3. The petitioner/Mutt, is situated on the banks of the River Tunga and claims ownership of a vast stretch of land, specifically property bearing Survey No.19, measuring approximately 80 acres and 20 guntas. The petitioner asserts its rights over this land, relying on various documents, including the Kethuwara (Annexure-F) and the Record of Rights (RTC) from the year 1960. In these documents, the petitioner's name is listed in both the ownership and cultivators' columns, strengthening its claim. Further support is drawn from the Record of Rights -4- NC: 2024:KHC:40948 WP No. 24350 of 2024 (Annexure-E), which evidences the petitioner's long- standing ownership.
4. The crux of the petition revolves around the demand for a phodi (the subdivision of land), as the petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of the respondent- authorities who, in 1978, allegedly undid the phodi conducted previously. This was done without issuing any notice to the petitioner, which led to the merging of the petitioner's land with other lands. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation on 18.10.2021 to respondent No.3, requesting that a fresh phodi be conducted or the earlier error rectified. However, the petitioner alleges that the respondent authorities failed to act, leaving the phodi and durasthi (rectification) proceedings incomplete.
5. The petitioner contends that the authorities' failure to conduct the necessary survey and durasthi amounts to a violation of its rights. The petitioner further argues that its claim to the land is supported by historical -5- NC: 2024:KHC:40948 WP No. 24350 of 2024 records dating back to 1914, which consistently reflect its ownership in the relevant documents, including the RTC. It is submitted that these records, maintained over decades, validate the petitioner's status as both the owner and cultivator of the land.
6. The petitioner also emphasizes that the respondents' inaction, particularly the failure to notify the petitioner of any changes, contravenes the legal process required for land subdivision. The petitioner asserts that the land is patta land and not part of any forest area, as the State has failed to provide any evidence substantiating such a claim.
7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General (AGA) representing the State vehemently opposes the petition. The State contends that no writ of mandamus can be issued in this matter because the land in question has been notified as minor forest land. The State argues that, in such circumstances, the petitioner's request for a phodi cannot be entertained.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:40948 WP No. 24350 of 2024
8. Having carefully reviewed the records, the State's case is weakened by the fact that it has not filed any formal statement or produced any documentation to support its assertion that the land forms part of a minor forest. The absence of such records raises significant doubts about the State's claim. Furthermore, the petitioner has pointed out that the adjoining lands have been notified as forest land, whereas the subject land remains classified as patta land, which further complicates the respondents' position.
9. Upon considering the submissions made by both parties, this Court notes that the crux of the dispute hinges on whether the petitioner's land is part of a minor forest or remains patta land. The petitioner's claim is backed by decades of documentation showing continuous ownership and cultivation, while the State's claim that the land is part of a forest is unsubstantiated by any evidence.
10. In the absence of clear proof from the State, this Court is of the view that the question of whether the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:40948 WP No. 24350 of 2024 petitioner's land is part of a forest can only be resolved through a survey and detailed inquiry. It is the duty of the respondent authorities to ascertain the factual position by conducting a survey, examining all relevant records, and determining whether the petitioner's land falls within the notified minor forest area.
11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the State cannot indefinitely delay the process of land subdivision (phodi) under the pretext that the land might be part of a minor forest without producing any definitive evidence to that effect. The authorities' failure to conduct the necessary survey and to act on the petitioner's representation amounts to inaction, which cannot be allowed to continue.
12. This Court holds that a writ of mandamus is justified in this case to compel the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. The State must act without delay to resolve this matter by -8- NC: 2024:KHC:40948 WP No. 24350 of 2024 conducting a proper survey and making a clear determination as to the status of the land.
13. For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) Respondents Nos.4 and 6
are directed to conduct survey and phodi of the property in accordance with the directions issued by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, as per Annexure-A;
(iii) While conducting the survey, the competent authority shall determine whether the petitioner's land is part of the minor forest;
(iv) All interested stakeholders shall be notified, and any objections raised during the survey shall be duly considered before taking further action, in accordance with the law; -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:40948 WP No. 24350 of 2024
(v) This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(vi) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12