Karnataka High Court
Sri A Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
WP No. 669 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 669 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A. VENKATESH
S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25,
H D DEVEGOWDA ROAD,
R T NAGAR BANGALORE-32
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPT. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Digitally signed by
KRISHNAPPA LAXMI DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
YASHODA BENGLAURU-560001
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGLAURU-560001
3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-3
BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION
BANGALORE-560009
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
WP No. 669 of 2024
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009
5. TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009
6. DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE,
KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
K KAMRAJ ROAD
BENGALURU-560042
7. PARACHUTE REGIMENT
TRAINING CENTRE (PRTC)
(INDIAN ARMY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
UNION OF INDIA)
J C NAGAR
BENGALURU-560006
REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5
SRI. KUMAR M.N., CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FOR R6 & R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH
ANNEXURE-L DATED 23/05/2023 ON THE FILE OF RRT(2)(NA)
CR.28/2010-11 PASSED BY THE R3, SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER-3, IAS CADRE BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION,
BENGALURU -09 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS MAY BE
DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
WP No. 669 of 2024
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-L dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-3, Bengaluru North Sub-Division in proceedings bearing No.RRT(2) (NA)CR:28/2010-11 and the petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings bearing No.LND(Appeal):15/2016-17 pending consideration before respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this case has got a checkered history. The claim of the petitioner is regarding 2 acres of land in Sy.No.1 of Savarline village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The petitioner is claiming under the original grantee- Sri.Nagarajappa, who is said to have been granted land in question on 07.10.1954. It is contended that the name of Sri.Nagarajappa was entered in the land revenue records. In the year 1968, a registered partition deed was executed -4- NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 between the family members of Sri.Nagarajappa. Sri.Nagarajappa also left behind a registered Will dated 18.07.1984 in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that the name of the petitioner has been entered in the records of the then City Corporation of Bengaluru. It is contended that in terms of a registered partition deed dated 18.02.2009, site No.1 and 2 fell to the share of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Defence Estate Officer to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of site No.1 and 2, which is adjoining the defence land of the Controller of Quality Assurance Laboratory (CQAL), as a matter of precaution to avoid any boundary dispute. It is contended that on 11.12.2009, the Defence Estate Officer issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner after verifying the Military Land Register; endorsement issued by the Tahsildar and on physical verification, stating that the land falls outside the boundary of the defence land. However, subsequently, No Objection Certificate was recalled and at the instance of respondent No.7-Parachute Regiment Training Center (PRTC), the Special Deputy -5- NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), in the matter of revenue entries.
3. When the proceedings were pending consideration before the Special Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.51566/2013, seeking a direction to the Special Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the proceedings within a time frame. Accordingly, this Court directed the Special Deputy Commissioner to conclude the proceedings on or before 30.04.2014. Learned Senior Counsel submits that when the Deputy Commissioner did not pass orders within timeframe fixed by this Court, the petitioner had to, initiate contempt proceedings before this Court and during the course of the contempt proceedings. The Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 19.06.2014, remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner clearly held that the powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act gives -6- NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 limited power of correction of entry and not for cancellation of entry in the revenue records. It was directed that the contesting respondents herein who have parallel claim to title and possession over the subject land, may resort to the proviso to Section 135 of the Act to seek declaration of their title over the subject land and they may also challenge the khatha entry made in the records of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The Deputy Commissioner had also extracted a portion of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.31788/2011, wherein it was held "where the grant is proved to be obtained by making false or fraudulent representation or is contrary to rules, an appeal is the remedy and the provisions under Section 136(3) cannot be invoked for the purpose of indirectly securing the cancellation of grant".
4. Having regard to such orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it was impermissible for the contesting respondents herein to once again approach the Assistant Commissioner, invoking the provisions contained -7- NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 in Section 136(2) of the Act and it was highly derogating on the part of the Special Deputy Commissioner to once again reopen the proceedings in RRT(2) (NA) CR:
28/2010-11, which was concluded in terms of the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 19.06.2014.
5. Per contra, learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel Sri.M.N.Kumar, submits that in the order dated 19.06.2014, the Special Deputy Commissioner had also directed the Tahsildar to examine the case under the relevant land grant rules having regard to the statement made by the Tahsildar in the suit pending consideration in O.S.No.2403/2006 and the Affidavits filed in M.F.A.No.7264/2006 & M.F.A.No.7265/2006. The Deputy Commissioner had also directed that keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.31788/2011, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru (North) Taluk was directed to initiate separate enquiry under the relevant land grant legislation prevailing at the relevant period, in order to look into all -8- NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 aspects of grant. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the Tahsildar, Bengaluru (North) Taluk, initiated proceedings in LND (Y) CR.338/2014-15 and held that late Sri.Nagarajappa was indeed granted 2 acres of land in the year 1954 and revenue entries were entered in accordance with law. The Tahsildar confirmed the grant made in favour of Sr.Nagarajappa as well as the entries made in the revenue records. Aggrieved of the orders passed by this Tahsildar, the contesting respondents herein have filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, invoking Section 136(2) of the Act. These proceedings are called in question by the petitioner.
6. Learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel submits that suo motu proceeding under Section 136(3) reviving the earlier proceedings in RRT(2) (NA)CR:
28/2010-11 at the hands of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, is for the purpose of examining the genuineness of the grant records in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.1 of Savarline -9- NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 village. Having regard to the discussion made by the Special Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 23.05.2023, which has been furnished as Annexure-L, it is clear that the Special Deputy Commissioner, having regard to the examination of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2403/2006 and in R.F.A.No.699/2002, found that the entry in the Military Land Register is an official document maintained by the Military Department and the entry in the Military Land Register are entered based on the acquisition of title and the register maintained by the Military Department maintained by the Authority has evidentiary value and the findings of this Court also substantiates the said facts.
7. Having regard to the preliminary findings the Special Deputy Commissioner has dropped the proceedings as against the contesting respondents herein while proceedings to further probe into the genuineness of the grant made in favour of Sri.Nagarajappa. Learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel further submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner has found from the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 records that the lands were acquired for the benefit of the defence establishment under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the notifications have been gazzetted in the Mysore Gazette between 1893-1899 for the public purpose of Savar Parade Ground, Mysore, Imperial Service Troops, for the erection of Gram-boiling shed for the use of New Imperial Cavelry Line for construction of Transport service Line. It has been noticed that nearly 600 and odd acres were notified and acquired for the said purpose. After publication of the said notifications, proceedings were conducted in the year 1907 and the entire notified area was classified into three Administration Units i.e., Savarline to an extent of 373.33 acres and remaining extent were marked as Water Works and Firing Range. In that view of the matter, the learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel would submit that the proceedings having been initiated at the hands of the petitioner is required to be taken to its logical conclusion. It is submitted that allegations as sought to be made by the petitioner against the contesting respondents should be
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 rejected having in view the findings given by the Special Deputy Commissioner that the records would reveal that the lands in question were legitimately acquired for the benefit of defence establishment of the Union of India.
8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel for the contesting respondents No.6 and 7, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State and revenue authorities and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is required to consider the contention of the petitioner regarding the suo motu initiation of proceedings at the hands of the Special Deputy Commissioner-3 reopening the earlier proceedings in RRT(2) (NA)CR: 28/2010-11 and the proceedings initiated at the hands of the contesting respondents before the Assistant Commissioner invoking section 136(2) of the Act. For the purpose of considering the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that having regard to the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 19.06.2014, this Court
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 finds that although the Special Deputy Commissioner clearly held that the scope of Section 136(3) or for that matter 136 of the Act was limited for the purpose of correction of entry in the land records and not for cancellation of entry in the revenue records, nevertheless, directed that the contesting respondents herein may resort to the proviso to Section 135 of the Act to seek declaration of their title over the subject land and at the same time, raise a challenge to the entries made in the khatha register of the BBMP. However, the Special Deputy Commissioner also makes an observation that in the light of the statements made by the then Tahsildar in O.S.No.2403/2006 and the Affidavits filed by the Tahsildar in M.F.A.No.7264/2006 & M.F.A.No.7265/2006, it became necessary to examine the case under land grant rules by the competent authority, and therefore issued such direction to the Tahsildar. In the considered opinion of this Court such a direction or observation could not have been made by the Special Deputy Commissioner. Even if such directions are given, it was impermissible for the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 Tahsildar to go into the question of testing the genuineness of the grant made in favour of Sri.Nagarajappa way back in the year 1954 under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules.
9. Nevertheless, this time around the Tahsildar once again goes into question of grant said to have been made in favour of Sri.Nagarajappa and gives a finding in the fresh proceedings in LND(Y)CR.338/2014-15, dated 13.07.2015 that the procedures enunciated in the land grant rules during the year 1954 were followed and therefore, the grant made in favour of Sri.Nagarajappa to an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.1 was held to be genuine and in accordance with law. It was also concluded that subsequent revenue entries following the grant were also made in accordance with law and therefore, they could not be any grievance on the part of the contesting respondents regarding the revenue entries made in favour of Sri.Nagarajappa. Aggrieved by such findings, the contesting respondents herein have once
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 again approached the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) of the Act.
10. Having regard to the reiteration of the established position of law by the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Smt.Jayamma and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, reported in ILR 2020 Kar.1449, the revenue authorities, be it, the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties. It is the exclusive domain of the competent Civil Court to adjudicate the disputed questions of title and ultimately, if any decree is passed by the competent civil court it shall be binding not only on the private parties but also on the revenue authorities. Having regard to the established position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be impermissible in law to permit the Special Deputy Commissioner to invoke the suo motu powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act and moreso to reopen a case which was already concluded by the Special Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 19.06.2014, such
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 proceedings cannot be permitted to proceed, since it is contrary to the provisions of law.
11. Insofar as the proceedings initiated by the contesting respondents No.6 and 7 preferring an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner invoking section 136(2) of the Act, challenging the orders passed by the Tahsildar on 13.07.2015 in proceedings bearing No.LND(Y)CR. 338/2014-15 are concerned, the same principles which were enunciated in the case of Smt.Jayamma (supra) would again apply. The Special Deputy Commissioner had clearly held in its order dated 19.06.2014 that since a dispute has been raised on the title of the property in question, the parties are required to approach the competent civil court, it is impermissible for the revenue authorities to say anything that would touch upon the title of the property. This Court should also notice the fact that the suit has been filed in O.S.No.2403/2006 at the hands of Sri.Srinivas Reddy and others against the respondents herein, including the revenue authorities and the Union of India, through the Defence Department. However, it has
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 to be noticed that the prayer in the suit was only for permanent injunction. The suit has been dismissed while a regular first appeal in RFA No.693/2007 is said to have been preferred by the plaintiffs. This Court need not remind the rival claimants therein that the Special Deputy Commissioner has long back held in his order dated 19.06.2014 that the aggrieved parties will have to approach the competent civil court to get a declaration of title. Moreover, admittedly, the land in question is within the jurisdiction of the BBMP and the revenue entries in the revenue records of the State may not be of much consequence.
12. Having regard to the findings given herein above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner-3, Bengaluru North Division in RRT (2) (NA): 28/2010-11 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 23.05.2023 in the said proceeding are also quashed and set aside.
(iii) The proceedings initiated at the hands of respondents No.6 and 7 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division in LND(Appeal):15/2016-17 and all further proceedings thereto, are also quashed and set aside.
(iv) Having regard to the findings given by this Court that the revenue authorities will not be permitted to say anything regarding the title of the property, consequentially, the order passed by the Tahsildar in proceedings bearing No.LND(Y)CR.
338/2014-15 dated 13.07.2015 is also
quashed and set aside.
(v) Having regard to the confusion created in
the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 19.06.2014, wherein
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 directions were issued to the Tasildar to further enquire into the matter, it is hereby clarified that the portion of the order in the paragraphs No.4 and 5 regarding the directions issued to the Tahsildar are also quashed and set aside.
(vi) It is also clarified that the observation of the Special Deputy Commissioner in paragraph No.2 that respondents No.2 and 3 (respondents No.6 and 7 herein) who have parallel claim to title and possession may resort to the proviso to Section 135 of the Act and seek declaration of their title, shall be read as an observation in respect of the rival claimants and not restricted to the respondents herein.
(vii) It is also necessary to notice here that if the parties approach the competent civil court seeking declaration of title, the civil court shall consider the matter on its
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534 WP No. 669 of 2024 merits and not give any undue importance to the revenue entries.
13. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL CT: JL