Karnataka High Court
Miss. Raksha R Acharya vs The Deputy Commissioner & on 26 September, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.39439/2016 (ULC)
BETWEEN :
MISS. RAKSHA R ACHARYA,
D/O. SRI. M. RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT "HARIDWARA",
NEKKILA GUDDE, DEREBAIL,
MANGALORE-575 006. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
(URBAN LAND CEILING & REGULATION)
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALURU-575 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION
LALBAGH, MANGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
(R3-AMENDED BY COURT ORDER
DATED 12.01.2017) ... RESPONDENTS
-2-
(BY SRI S.THAVARESH NAIK, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2,
SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.10.2015 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ONE WITHOUT
JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner herein claiming herself to be the owner of the land measuring to an extent of 60 cents in Sy.No.152/2 situate in Padavu village, Mangaluru Taluk, has come up in this writ petition impugning the endorsement bearing No.C.Dis/ULC/CR/37/2015-16:105240-D-3 dated 28.10.2015 (Annexure 'A' to the petition) issued by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner / the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation).
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under:
-3-
2.1 Petitioner herein is said to be the granddaughter of one Smt.Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, the erstwhile owner of land bearing Sy.No.152/2, which totally measured 01 Acre 35 cents, and several other properties. After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the ULC Act, 1976'), the petitioner's grandmother, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, before the first respondent giving particulars about the vacant lands held by her in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the said Act. The first respondent after conducting enquiry, prepared a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, indicating that the land measuring to an extent of 60 cents in Sy.
No.152/2A was found to be in excess of the ceiling limit permissible under the said Act. The draft statement along with notice dated 19.05.1984 was issued to the land owner calling upon her to file objections, if any, within 30 days therefrom. The same was served on her on 04.06.1984. Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai filed her objections. The first respondent after considering the objections, passed an order under -4- Section 8(4) of the said Act observing that Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai was holding land measuring to an extent of 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2A in excess of the ceiling limit permissible under the ULC Act, 1976, and thereafter, prepared a final statement under Section 9 of the said Act. The final statement along with the notice dated 07.06.1986 was served on the land owner on 15.07.1986. Subsequently, the first respondent issued notification dated 26.08.1986 under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 11.09.1986, giving particulars of the vacant land measuring 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2 held by Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai in excess of the ceiling limit. It is stated that since no claim of any interested person in the said vacant land was received by the first respondent within the period of 30 days from 26.08.1986, it issued notification dated 29.10.1987 under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 03.12.1987 declaring that the excess land referred to in the notification published under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, was deemed to have been acquired by the State Government with -5- effect from 20.12.1987. Pursuant to the said notification, the name of the 'Government' was entered in respect of the said excess land in the revenue records. Notice dated 01.02.1988 was issued to the land owner, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, represented by her special attorney holder, Sri Vasudeva Kamath, intimating her that physical possession of the excess land would be taken on 12.02.1988. On the said day, possession of the land in question was taken over by the Government from the land owner. The first respondent - competent Authority, by its order bearing No.ULC:S:375:76- 77 dated 23.03.1994, determined the compensation of Rs.4,822/- in respect of the said excess land and passed the award.
2.2 During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings under the Urban Land (Celing and Regulation) Act, 1976, the said Act came to be repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act, 1999'), which was adopted by the State of Karnataka with effect from 17.09.1999.
-6-
2.3 The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the said excess land by virtue of unregistered Will dated 28.01.2007 executed by her grandmother, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, made representation dated 25/05/2013 (Annexure 'C' to the petition) before the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner requesting the said authority to enter her name in the RTC by removing the name of the Government in respect of the said land.
2.4 The first respondent after considering the said representation of the petitioner and after securing local inspection report from Tahasildar dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure 'D' to the petition), issued the endorsement dated 28.10.2015 (Annexure 'A' to the petition) to the effect that the land measuring 0.60 Acre in Sy. No.152/2 was notified as 'excess land' and the same was acquired by the Government vide order bearing No.ULC.375/76-77 dated 23.03.1994 under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976, and the said land had already been handed over to the Commissioner, Mangalore City Corporation, for the formation of Dhobighat. Accordingly, respondent No.1 rejected the application of the petitioner for -7- entering her name in the RTC in respect of the said land. The said endorsement is sought to be quashed in this writ petition.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the statement of objections inter alia giving particulars about the proceedings (referred supra) initiated under the ULC Act, 1976. They pointed out that possession of the land measuring 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2 was taken by the Government from the land owner, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, under the mahazar dated 12.02.1988 vide Annexure 'R1' to the Statement of Objections. Thereafter, on 23.03.1994, Deputy Commissioner after determining the compensation in respect of the said land, had passed the award. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the Will dated 28.01.2007 said to have been executed by Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai was void for the reason that as on the date of execution of the said Will, the land in question had vested with the Government pursuant to the notification issued under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976. However, they conceded in para No.9 of the statement of objections that the report dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure 'D' to the petition) submitted by the Tahasildar, Mangaluru, was -8- contrary to the documents on record as he had not personally visited the spot and had not considered the relevant documents. It is further stated that the land in question had already been handed over to the Mangalore City Corporation for the formation of Dhobi ghat. Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 justified the impugned endorsement issued by the first respondent and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Mangalore City Corporation, which was impleaded as respondent No.3 in this petition at the instance of the petitioner on 12.01.2017, filed statement of objections denying the averments made in para Nos.2, 4 and 5 of the petition. It inter alia contended that the land in question, which was declared as 'excess land' above the ceiling limit under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976, was acquired by the State and the entries in the RTC pertaining to the said land had been rightly changed in favour of the Government. Respondent No.3 in para No.8 of its statement of objections has pointed out that as the excess land has not been made over to it and as no relief has been sought against it, the petition was liable to be dismissed as against it. -9-
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the material on record including the revenue records, which are made available by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the first respondent issued notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976, declaring that Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai held vacant land measuring 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2 beyond the ceiling limit permissible under the said Act and it was deemed to be vested in the State Government, the possession of the same was not taken over by the Government and Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai during her lifetime continued in possession of the said land. In view of the provisions of sub-section 2(a) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999, the proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976, stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, was entitled to retain the land in question and by virtue of unregistered Will executed by her dated 28.01.2007,
- 10 -
the petitioner has become the owner of the said land and the first respondent was not justified in rejecting her request for change of entries in the RTC in her favour in respect of the said land.
7. The relevant provisions of Sub-section 2(a) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999, reads as under:
"3. Saving.- (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect -
(a) ...... ...... ......
(b) ...... ...... ......
(c) ...... ...... ......
(2) Where --
(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and"
It is clear from the above said provisions that the same would be applicable only if the possession of the land had not been taken over by the State Government.
- 11 -
8. In the present case, the proceedings (referred supra) were initiated by the first respondent under the ULC Act, 1976 and the said authority issued notification dated 29.10.1987 under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 03.12.1987, declaring that the vacant land measuring 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2 held by Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai was in excess of the ceiling limit permissible under the ULC Act, 1976, and the said land was deemed to have been acquired by the State Government with effect from 20.12.1987. Subsequently, notice dated 01.02.1988 was issued to the land owner, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, represented by her special attorney holder, Sri Vasudeva Kamath, intimating her that physical possession of the excess land would be taken on 12.02.1988. On the said day, possession of the land in question was taken by the Government under the Mahazar vide Annexure-R1 to the Statement of Objections. As could be seen from the records, thereafter, nothing has taken place with reference to the aforesaid land till the year 2013.
- 12 -
9. On 25.05.2013, the petitioner made representation (Annexure 'C' to the petition) before the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner inter alia stating that the aforesaid 60 cents of land in Sy. No.152/2 along with several other properties was bequeathed by her grandmother, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, in her favour under an unregistered Will dated 28.01.2007. She contended that though order was passed by the first respondent in ULC No.375/76-77 declaring the said as 'excess land' beyond the ceiling limit permissible under the ULC Act, 1976, the actual possession of the said land had not been taken over by the State Government and the same continued with her grandmother. The Government had not paid any compensation in respect of the aforesaid land to her grandmother. The petitioner seriously disputed the mahazar said to have been drawn by the revenue officials regarding taking possession of the land and she requested to enter her name in the RTC by removing the name of the Government in respect of the said land.
10. The first respondent after receiving the said representation / application of the petitioner, called upon the
- 13 -
Tahasildar, Mangaluru, to conduct spot inspection and submit his report. It is seen that the Tahasildar, Mangaluru, submitted his report dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure 'D' to the petition), to the effect that though the land measuring 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2B was declared as 'excess land' pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act, 1976, possession of the said land was not taken over by the Government and the petitioner, who inherited the land from her grandmother, Smt.Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, by virtue of an unregistered Will, was in possession of the said land. The petitioner relying upon the said report of the Tahasildar and unregistered Will dated 28.01.2007 is trying to establish her right in respect of the said land.
11. Perusal of the order sheet maintained in this petition discloses that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 06.06.2018 has referred to the averments made in para No.9 of the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, wherein it was specifically stated that the report dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure 'D' to the petition) submitted by Tahasildar, Mangaluru, was contrary to the documents on
- 14 -
record. In light of the same, coordinate Bench of this Court called upon the then Tahasildar, who had issued the endorsement dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure 'D' to the statement of objections) to explain the situation and the respondent - State was called upon to explain as to whether any action was taken against the said Tahasildar and to report the same to the Court on the next date of hearing.
12. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, Sri Shivappa Lambani, the then Tahasildar, who had issued the communication dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure 'D' to the petition), filed his affidavit dated 26.06.2018 (filed before the Court on 03.07.2018) stating that he was working as Tahasildar at Mangaluru between 09.04.2013 to 31.08.2013 i.e., for a period of four months. During the said tenure, he was asked by the first respondent vide his letter dated 5/12.06.2013 to inspect the spot and submit his report in respect of the actual physical possession of the land in Sy. No.152/2B measuring 0.60 Acre. Pursuant to the said direction, he in turn, instructed the Revenue Inspector to conduct inspection. Revenue Inspector is said to have
- 15 -
submitted the report on 14.06.2013 based on the report of the Village Accountant, Padavu village, dated 13.06.2013. The explanation offered by the deponent - Sri Shivappa Lambani is that since he was working for a limited period of four months in Mangaluru Taluk, and in view of the urgent election work, he did not personally inspect the spot and he bona fide believed his subordinates, who are stated to have given him wrong information that the possession of the land was not taken over by the Government, and accordingly, he issued the report dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure 'D' to the petition).
13. However, when the entire records, which are produced before this Court are looked into, there is enough material to demonstrate that possession of the land was taken much earlier to 1990 i.e., on 12.02.1988 itself and the land owner, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, who was alive till 2007 had not raised any objection and the petitioner herein, who is said to have acquired title to the said property under unregistered Will dated 28.01.2007, had kept quiet till 25.05.2013 and only on 25.05.2013, she made a representation to the first respondent seeking challenge to the revenue entries thereby
- 16 -
clearly indicating that there was a concerted effort to manipulate the records in such a way as to demonstrate that the petitioner's grandmother continued in possession of the land in question till her death and thereafter, by virtue of the Will dated 28.01.2007 executed by her grandmother bequeathing the said land in her favour, she had become the owner of the said property and in exercise of the so-called right created in her favour, she was seeking change of revenue entries in her favour in respect of the said land.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his aforesaid contention, relied upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court, wherein one of the members of the Bench is the Presiding Judge of this Court. The said decision was rendered in the matter of Sri Vincent D' Souza and another Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation) and another in Writ Appeal Nos.1352/2008 and 1375/2009 (ULC) disposed of on 26.07.2011. The facts pertaining to the said case are as follows:
- 17 -
The first appellant, owner of the land measuring 0.50 acre in Sy.No.175/7 and another land measuring 0.05 acre in Sy. No.175/1B situate in Ullal village, Mangaluru Taluk, filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act before the Deputy Commissioner and competent authority, who after issuing notice to the first appellant, determined that the first appellant was holding 2047.50 Sq. feet (Sq. meters) of land in excess of the ceiling limit. Being aggrieved by the same, the first appellant filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, an extent of 10 cents of land in Sy. No.175/7 of Ullal village was sold by the first appellant in favour of the second appellant for a valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 08.10.1993. The respondent - State is stated to have taken possession of the said lands as per mahazar dated 08.03.1995 and award came to be passed. The Appellate Authority after considering the material on record by its order dated 25.10.1999, held that the appeal pending before it abated in view of the coming into force of the Repeal Act. The first appellant received notice dated 17.02.2005 from the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that he was entitled to make an application for claim of Rs.6,141/- before the said Authority within the time stipulated therein. The said notice was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition in W.P.No.13566/2005 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated 26.09.2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants therein preferred writ appeal in W.A. No.3601/2005. Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 02.06.2006, disposed of the said appeal as withdrawn reserving liberty to the appellants therein to file their objections, if any, to the aforesaid show cause notice. Pursuant to the said order, the appellants therein filed their objections on 25.10.2006. In light of the same, Deputy Commissioner directed Tahasildar, Mangalore to make a local inspection. The Tahasildar after conducting inspection on 15.12.2006, submitted
- 18 -
his report along with letter dated 06.02.2007. Based on the said report, the Deputy Commissioner issued endorsement dated 10.07.2007 to the appellants therein indicating that possession of an extent of 50 cents in Sy. No.175/7 and half a cent in Sy. No.175/1B could not be restored to the possession of the appellants therein as the same had become property of the State in terms of the proceedings dated 08.03.1995 under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants therein approached this Court in W.P. No.15303/2007 (ULC). Learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 01.08.2008, dismissed the said writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioners therein to approach the Civil Court to seek appropriate relief regarding possession as it was a disputed question of fact. The said order of the learned single Judge was the subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid Writ Appeals.
14.1 Division Bench in para No.9 of its judgment, referred to the records including the letter dated 07.04.1995 written by Special Tahasildar to the Commissioner for Town Planning Authority and two other authorities, wherein it was indicated that there were two houses in the aforesaid lands. Division Bench in the light of the said documents and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case, opined that possession of the said lands was not taken on 08.03.1995 as per the mahazar relied upon by the Government Advocate and even if the vesting of the lands by
- 19 -
virtue of mahazar dated 08.03.1995 came to the benefit of the State, unless the State was able to establish the fact of them taking possession of the lands, proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976, stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Accordingly, Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeals by setting aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 01.08.2008.
15. When the facts of the present case are appreciated in the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court would observe that the finding rendered in the said judgment would have no bearing to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as from 12.02.1988 till this date, the possession of the land in question continued with the Government and in the meanwhile, the first respondent has transferred the said land to respondent No.3 - Mahanagara Palike, Mangalore, for the purpose of formation of Dhobi ghat.
16. When this matter was heard, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to substantiate that possession of the land is with the petitioner by relying upon certain photographs,
- 20 -
which clearly indicate that the entire land is a vacant land. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is in possession of the same. Therefore, the said judgment of Division Bench would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to claim that she is in possession of the land in question.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon`ble Apex Court in the matter of Gajanan Kamlya Patil vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority (ULC) and others reported in ((2014) 12 Supreme Court Cases 523). The relevant facts in the said case are as under:
The competent Authority initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of appellant's lands under the ULC Act. The appellant was issued a notice dated 17.02.2005 under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act for taking possession of his lands bearing Sy. Nos.47/10 and 54/4 in terms of the notification dated 12.12.2002 on the premise that the said lands had vested in the Government of Maharastra. The appellant was called upon to hand over possession of the said lands within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and he was intimated that if he failed to do so, action would be taken for taking possession by application of necessary force. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the appellant therein filed writ petition in W.P. No.1669/2010 before the Bombay High Court. The High Court after examining the provisions of the ULC Act as well as the Repeal Act and taking note of the
- 21 -
affidavit filed by the State Government and by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), noticed that so far as Sy. No.47/10 was concerned, possession had not been taken over by the MMRDA. Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition granting relief to the appellant in respect of Sy. No.47/10, but so far as Sy. No.54/4 was concerned, the appellant was granted liberty to move the Civil Court for establishing his claim over the said property. After adoption of the Repeal Act on 01.12.2007, pursuant to the order of the Collector, Thane, dated 01.07.2008, the Circle Office, Balkum, Taluka and District Thane, executed 'possession receipt' dated 02.07.2008 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.54/4 belonging to the appellant in favour of the Chief Surveyor of MMRDA.
17.1 The Hon`ble Apex Court noticed that no notice was given to the appellant before executing the possession receipt; additional affidavit dated 29.04.2010 was filed by the Competent Authority stating that he could not find any document like panchanama or possession receipt in respect of the land covered by Sy. No.54/4 and the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, in his affidavit dated 02.07.2010 had categorically stated that the possession had not been handed over by the land owner and the competent authority. In that background, the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon its earlier judgment rendered in the
- 22 -
matter of State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram reported in ((2013) 4 SCC 280), wherein the meaning and context of Sub-sections (3) to (6) of Section 10 of the ULC Act was examined by the Apex Court and the manner in which possession was required to be taken when the same was not surrendered by the land owner and also the procedure, which was required to be followed while taking forcible possession of the land was also discussed by the Apex Court. The Hon`ble Apex Court in para No.12 of the said judgment has held as under:
"12. We have, therefore, clearly indicated that it was always open to the authorities to take forcible possession and, in fact, in the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, it was stated that if the possession had not been surrendered, possession would be taken by application of necessary force. For taking forcible possession, certain procedures had to be followed. The respondents have no case that such procedures were followed and forcible possession was taken. Further, there is nothing to show that the respondents had taken peaceful possession, nor is there anything to show that the appellants had given voluntary possession. The facts would clearly indicate that only de jure possession had been taken by the respondents and not de facto possession before coming into force of the repeal of the Act. Since there is nothing to show that de facto possession had been taken from the appellants prior to the execution of
- 23 -
the possession receipt in favour of MMRDA, it cannot hold on to the lands in question, which are legally owned and possessed by the appellants. Consequently, we are inclined to allow this appeal and quash the notice dated 17-2-2005 and subsequent action taken therein in view of the repeal of the ULC Act. The above reasoning would apply in respect of other appeals as well and all proceedings initiated against the appellants, therefore, would stand quashed.
The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
18. In the instant case, as could be seen from the documents produced by learned High Court Government Pleader, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976, the possession of the land in question is taken by Tahasildar in the presence of Sri Vasudeva Kamanth, the special attorney holder / representative of the land loser and other independent local witnesses / residents on 12.02.1988 under the mahazar vide Annexure 'R1' to the statement of objections. In that view of the matter, the said judgment of the Apex Court in Gajanan Kamlya Patil's case would also not enure to the benefit of the petitioner.
- 24 -
19. The learned High Court Government Pleader while opposing this writ petition, would rely upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Adarsh Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited reported in ((2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 493). In the said matter, the lands which were the subject-matter in the appeals, had been purchased by the respondent therein - Adarsh Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited from the original declarants / landowners during the years 1991-92. After the order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act was passed and notification was issued under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, the same was followed by issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act to the declarant calling upon him to deliver possession of the land declared as surplus. The Apex Court, having regard to the undisputed fact that the respondent had purchased the property from the declarant which was vested with the State Government under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act in terms of Section 10(3) notification under the said Act, held that the transfer of the said property in favour of the respondent, who was claiming its interest in the said property
- 25 -
was void ab initio in law and the High Court was not justified in granting the relief at the instance of the respondent therein. The Apex Court has observed in para No.6 of its judgment as under:
"6. In our opinion, the respondent herein has no locus standi to challenge the inaction on the part of the appellants viz. not taking possession legally strictly complying with the statutory provisions under Section 10(5) of the Act and taking over possession as provided under Section 10(6) of the Act. At this juncture, this aspect need not be examined by this Court at the instance of the respondent."
20. In the light of the aforesaid observations, it is not open for the petitioner herein to contend that her grandmother, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, was in possession of the land in question, which was taken by the Government in the year 1988, and that after her death, by virtue of unregistered Will executed by her grandmother on 28.01.2007, the title in respect of the said land had vested with her and that she continues to be in possession. The said claim of the petitioner is without any basis, more particularly in the light of the affidavit filed by the Tahasildar dated
- 26 -
26.06.2018 in indicating how he was misled by Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant and the same resulted in filing of a false report dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure 'D' to the petition) to the effect that the petitioner is in possession of the said land by virtue of the Will dated 28.01.2007 executed by Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai.
21. It is necessary to place on record that in umpteen number of cases, where there is challenge with reference to possession of lands being taken by the Government by virtue of the proceedings under the under the ULC Act, 1976, there is an attempt on the part of the revenue officials / officers to manipulate the records by removing the relevant documents to show as if handing over of possession by the land loser/s had not taken place. The present proceedings appear to be yet another attempt by legal heir of a disgruntled land loser in trying to demonstrate as if she is in possession of the land in question when admittedly, the records would indicate that the land measuring 60 cents (2411.28 Square Meters) in Sy. No.152/2 was lost by her predecessor-in-title, namely, her grandmother Smt. Lalitha @ Seethabai, as could be seen from
- 27 -
the notification dated 29.10.1987 issued under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, by the first respondent and which notification was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 03.12.1987 (which is available in the records). The revenue documents including Annexure 'D' to the petition prima facie appear to have been created in collusion with the Government officials for extraneous reasons. Hence, the said documents cannot be looked into. In that view of the matter, no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned endorsement dated 28.10.2015 issued by the first respondent. Hence, the impugned endorsement does not call for interference.
22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
23. While resting with this matter, this Court would direct the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Mangaluru, to initiate appropriate proceedings against Tahasildar, who is the author of letter dated 14.06.2013 vide Annexure 'D' to the petition, and also the other officials i.e., concerned Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector, who assisted him in giving the said report to the Deputy
- 28 -
Commissioner. In the said proceedings, after sufficient opportunity being given to the aforesaid officials to support their action, if they are found to be guilty, the first respondent shall ensure that appropriate punishment is imposed upon them for manipulating the Government records so that the same acts as a deterrent for others not to indulge in such activities.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma