Karnataka High Court
Sri Anjinappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION Nos.43477-43480 OF 2012 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Anjinappa,
Age 65 years,
S/o Munishamappa,
R/o T.Hosahalli, Kasaba Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
2. Sri Muniyappa,
Age 61 years,
S/o Nanjappa,
R/o Chikkasanne, Kasaba Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
3. Smt.Venkatamma,
Age 60 years,
W/o Krishnappa,
R/o No.619, 1st Main, 2nd Cross,
Chamarajpet, Bangalore - 560 018.
4. Smt.Parvathamma,
Age 58 years,
W/o Muniyappa,
R/o Chikkasanne, Kasaba Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District. ... Petitioners
(By Sri Padmanabha V.Mahale, Sr.Counsel for
Sri H.N.M.Prasad, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue,
Represented by the Principal Secretary,
Multi-storied Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District,
Phodium Block,
Vishweshwaraiah Towers,
Vidhana Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Doddaballapur Sub-Division,
Vishweshara Towers,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Tahsildar,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Devanahalli,
Bangalore Rural District. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
common orders passed by KAT (Revenue) Bangalore in
appeals No.344 to 347/10 dated 28.9.2012 vide Annexure - A
and etc.
These writ petitions, coming on for further submission,
this day, the Court made the following:
3
ORDER
The petitioners have called into question the Deputy Commissioner's identical orders, dated 20.02.2010 (Annexure-AE) cancelling the grant of lands in their favour. They have also impugned the common orders, dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-A) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short) in Appeal Nos.344-347/2010, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners are the grantees of the various extents of land at Sy.No.21 of Poojanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District on 30.05.1984 (Annexure-G). The lands granted to all the petitioners put together aggregates to 10 acres. They have also paid the amounts for the grant of the lands (T.T.fine). The saguvali chit is issued to them. The revenue entries stood in their favour from 1989-1990 till 2003-2004 (Annexure-P1 to P4). The Sheristedar deleted their names from the records by his order, dated 26.01.2004. His order was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner in 4 R.A.No.75/2003-2004 and upheld by the Deputy Commissioner. When thus stood the state of affairs, the Deputy Commissioner initiated the proceedings for the cancellation of the land-grant based on the Revenue Department's letter, dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure-AA) and the Regional Commissioner's letter, dated 28.05.2008 (Annexure- Z).
3. The Deputy Commissioner has held that the petitioners have misrepresented to the revenue authorities that the lands in the possession of the Horticulture Department were falsely claimed to be in their possession. He has also held that as per the report of the Revenue Inspector, it is to be taken that the petitioners' age was only eight years at the time of making the application for the grant of land. He also observed that the mortal hurry is shown in the payment of the amounts and in the issuance of the receipt thereof for the grant of the land. He has observed that as per the Assistant Commissioner's report, the land is being cultivated by the petitioners for six years. Thus, raising the doubt, the Deputy Commissioner cancels the grant of the 5 land. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner is upheld by the K.A.T.
4. Sri Padmanabha V.Mahale, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri H.N.M.Prasad for the petitioners assails these orders.
5. He submits that even assuming that the Deputy Commissioner has the power to cancel the land-grant, the power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. In the instant case, it is exercised after 27 years of the granting of the land.
6. Nextly, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the granting of the land is affirmed in Section 136 proceedings both before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.
7. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the land, which was made over to the Horticulture Department measures 5 acres and not 18 acres. He submits that even the 6 Horticulture Department has admitted that the possession of about 5 acres of land was given to them.
8. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Deputy Commissioner has prejudged the issue. Even before considering any material placed on the record by the petitioners, he observes in the preamble part of the impugned order that the lands are granted to seven persons, even when they were not in their possession. He also takes serious exception to the order being signed on 02.01.2010 and the order bearing the date 20.02.2010.
9. He submits that the petitioners have not made any misrepresentation in the ahavalu takhte of the revenue inspector. The petitioners cannot be blamed for the same, as the said report itself (Annexure-C) shows that the report is based on a confidential enquiry. The petitioners have had no control of how the enquiry has taken place and how the report is submitted thereon.
10. He pointedly brings to my notice of the exercise made before the granting of the land to the petitioners. On 7 holding the cattle census, it was found that there are 725 big head of cattle and that the available gomal land of about 17 guntas is sufficient for their grazing purpose. He submits that the reference to these vital statistics is found in the Assistant Commissioner's letter, dated 24.04.1984 (Annexure-F) addressed to the Special Deputy commissioner. He also brings to my notice that the Office Memorandum, dated 30.05.1984 (Annexure-G) itself states that the reduction of 17 acres of gomal land before the land came to be granted in favour of the petitioners and three others.
11. He submits that the letter, dated 17.07.2007 (Annexure-T) written by the Deputy Director of Horticulture to the Director of Horticulture also speaks of the handing-over of only 5 acres of land to the Horticulture Department. He brings to my notice the Government Committee's Enquiry report, dated 28.05.2008 (Annexure-Z) on encroachments in Kannamangala and Poojanahalli horticulture farm. It also states that though the Government has granted only 5 acres of land, the Horticulture Department seems to be in possession of 18.06 acres, including the 5 acres transferred 8 to the Indian Council of Medical Research (I.C.M.R.). The report also states that even after the transfer of 5 acres to I.C.M.R., the entry in RTC continued in the name of the Horticulture Department.
12. Per contra, Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner on noticing and finding that the petitioners were not in occupation of the lands granted to them. He submits that although only 5 acres of land standing at Sy.No.21 was granted to the Horticulture Department, the records reveal that the entire extent of the land measuring 18.06 acres was handed over to it on 23.10.1974.
13. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The questions that fall for my consideration are:
9
(i) Whether the delay of 27 years in cancelling the grant is justified under the facts and circumstances of this case.
(ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner is justified in cancelling the grant on holding that the petitioners have obtained the grant by false or fraudulent representation.
14. There is no doubt that Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 confers the power of cancelling the land grant on the competent authority, if the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations or is contrary to the said Rules. Neither the Karnataka Land Revenue Act nor the Karnataka Land Grant Rules framed thereunder prescribe any limitation within which the power to cancel the grant is to be exercised. But that does not mean that the authorities can rise up and exercise the power as and when they like. When the statute does not specify the period for exercising the power, it only means that it has to be exercised within reasonable time. What constitutes reasonable time varies from case to case.
10
15. In the instant case, the power of cancellation is exercised after 27 years. The land grant orders are made on 30.05.1984 and the cancellation proceedings are initiated in 2008. No explanation or justification whatsoever is forthcoming from the respondents for the delayed exercise of power. The first question is therefore answered against the respondents.
16. The Deputy Commissioner's impugned order lists out the alleged misrepresentations as follows:
a) Even when the possession of the land was made over to the Horticulture Department, the petitioners have misrepresented that they were in occupation of the land and obtained the grants.
b) The Deputy Commissioner has observed that in the ahavalu takhte, it is shown that the petitioners were cultivating the land for 20 years, even though they were aged about 28 years.
c) The Deputy Commissioner doubts the genuineness of the grant on the ground that the amounts towards the grant of the lands are remitted and the receipts therein are issued at terrific speed.11
d) The Deputy Commissioner takes exception to the Assistant Commissioner's report in which it is mentioned that the petitioners were cultivating the lands for 6 years.
17. Based on the perusal of the records, I find it very hard to believe that the petitioners have made any misrepresentation. No documents whatsoever are produced to show that the land granted to the Horticulture Department measured 18.06 acres. The records show that only 5 acres were granted to the Horticulture Department. No credence can be given to the official version that the entire extent of 18.06 acres including the land in question was made over to the Horticulture Department in the absence of any mahazar drawn at the time of handing over the possession. The report of the Committee appointed by the Government on the encroachments in Kannamangala and Poojanahalli (Annexure-Z) states as follows:
"Coming to Sy.No.21 of Poojenahalli village, it is seen that though Government has granted only 5 acres vide No.F/DIS/LND-1/SR-1/1170/69-70 dated 12/07/1973, Department seems to be in possession of 18.06 acres 12 including 5.00 acres transferred to ICMR. The Horticulture Department is seen to have surrendered 5.00 acres to Revenue Department for grant to Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) vide G.O.No.RD/228/ LGB/93 Bangalore dated 13/02/1996.
Even after transfer of 5.00 acres to ICMR, entries in RTC continued in the name of Horticulture Department even today.
................................................................ The Committee is handicapped to confirm whether 18.06 acres of land relating to Sy.No.21 Poojenahalli have been transferred to Horticulture Department in the absence of clear evidence."
18. The letter, dated 17.07.2007 (Annexure-T) submitted by the Deputy Director of Horticulture to the Director of Horticulture also refers to the preparation of the survey sketch of only 5 acres at Sy.No.21. The relevant portion reads as follows:
"¢£ÁAPÀ 27/2/96gÀAzÀÄ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï, zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î gÀªg À ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ¸ÀASÉå J¯ï.J£ï.r.¹.Dgï.1086/95-96 gÀAvÉ, ¥ÀÆd£ÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ ¸ÀªðÉ £ÀA.21gÀ°è 5 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ DUÉÆæà ªÉÄr¸À£ï ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzs£ À Á PÉÃAzÀæ ¸Áܦ¸À®Ä ªÉÄrPÀ¯ï j¸ÀZïð gÀªj À UÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ eÁUÀzÀ £ÀPëÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÆÃdtÂzÁgÀjAzÀ vÀAiÀiÁj¹ f¯Áè¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É vÀz£ À AÀ vÀgÀ 14/8/96gÀAzÀÄ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¤zÉðñÀPg À ÀÄ, »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉðñÀPg À ÀÄ, vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ 13 E¯ÁSÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ ¸ÉÌaÑ£° À è PÀAqÀ ¸ÀªðÉ £ÀA. 21gÀ 05-00 JPÀgÉ ¥ÀæzÉñÀª£ À ÀÄß gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸Àzj À ¥ÀæzÉñÀª£ À ÀÄß ¥Àqz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ D£ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 17/8/1996gÀAzÀÄ jÃd£À¯ï DPÀÄå¥ÃÉ µÀ£¯ À ï ºÉ¯ïÛ, ¸ÉAlgï (zÀQët), EArAiÀÄ£ï Pˤì¯ï D¥sï ªÉÄrPÀ¯ï j¸ÀZïðgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÌaÑ£° À è PÀAqÀ ¸ÀªðÉ £ÀA.21gÀ 05-00 JPÀgÉ ¥ÀæzÉñÀª£ À ÀÄß gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ¸¨ À Á ºÉÆç½, AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀ»¹PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛg...
É ..."
19. Thus, the records are not decisively indicative of the entire extent of 18.06 acres being made over to the Horticulture Department.
20. The formation of suspicion cannot be a ground for invalidating the grant, because the petitioners themselves have not made any misstatements in their applications for the grant of the lands. The ahavalu takhte is a report prepared by the Revenue Inspector. The said report (Annexure-C) itself states that the enquiry made by him is of confidential nature. The petitioners have had no say in and control over the confidential enquiry. If the Revenue Inspector has given a wrong report, the petitioners cannot be penalized for the same.
21. I am afraid the swift payment of the prescribed amounts towards the grant of land also cannot be a ground 14 for invalidating the grant. It is the normal human conduct that if the land is granted for nominal amounts, the prospective grantees would remit the amounts without any loss of time and obtain the receipts. They are all the steps in and towards the issuance of the saguvali chit. The Deputy Commissioner is not justified in holding that the circumstances are cloudy only because the petitioners have made the payments immediately and have obtained the receipts thereon.
22. There is no basis whatsoever for disbelieving the report of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has not examined the owners or the occupants of the adjoining lands. He has not perused the record of rights, which invariably contain the cultivators' column for the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioners were in possession of the lands in question for the period preceding the grant.
23. In the preamble portion of the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner observes:
15
"...........F ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ 7 ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀÄ C£ÀĨsª À z À ° À è E®è¢zÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀÛz...
É ....."
24. The delivering of such a finding, though prima facie however, is unwarranted. The Deputy Commissioner makes this observation even before he considers the petitioners' reply and the supporting documents thereof.
25. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned orders, dated 20.02.2010 (Annexure-AE) passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
26. I am now left with the examination of the K.A.T's order, dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-A). My perusal of the K.A.T's order reveals that the grounds urged by the petitioners for attacking the Deputy Commissioner's order are not considered in their proper perspective. On the other hand, the K.A.T. confirms the Deputy Commissioner's order citing an additional reason. It finds fault with the granting of the gomal land without taking into account the cattle population and the requirements for free pasturage.
16
27. The records reveals that the extent of the gomal land was reduced on reassessing the requirement of free pasturage for cattle head. The letter, dated 24.04.1984 (Annexure-F) issued by the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division addressed to the Special Deputy Commissioner states that as against 725 big head of cattle, the available gomal of 17.37 guntas is sufficient for the cattle. The villagers have no objection to the grant of land in favour of applicants at upset price of Rs.220/- per acre. It is only on such a redetermination of the gomal land required for free pasturage that the official memorandum, dated 30.05.1984 (Annexure-G) granting the land to the petitioners and three others is issued.
28. The K.A.T's order is unsupportable, as it has not taken into account the relevant materials. The K.A.T's impugned order, dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-A) is therefore quashed.
29. Consequent to the quashing of the impugned orders, the revenue authorities shall bring the revenue entries 17 in respect of the lands in question in conformity with this order.
30. In the result, these petitions are allowed. However, if any fresh material comes to the notice of the authorities indicating that the land-grant is obtained by making false or fraudulent representation, it is open to the respondents to initiate the appropriate proceedings therefor. If such proceedings are initiated, it is also open to the petitioners to take such defences as are permissible in law, including the delay and laches. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/MD