Karnataka High Court
Smt S Parvathamma 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 NOs.13431-13444 OF 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)
C/w.
W.P.NOs.5831/2012 & 5871/2012, 41318-41319/2011,
7638-7639/2012 AND 10885-10900/2012
W.P.Nos.13431-13444/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. Smt.S.Parvathamma,
W/o.Sriramaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.395, Block No.44,
KSRP Colony,
Koramangala,
Bangalore - 34.
2. Smt.K.Umavathi,
W/o.M.S.Ramu,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at. Madivala Village,
Marsur Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District.
3. Smt.K.Devi,
W/o.Late Vjayan,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.17, Kodihalli,
H.A.L.Main Road,
Near Dena Bank,
Bangalore - 560 008.
2
4. Mrs.Mary Magline P.U.
W/o.Avinash,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.17, 1st Cross,
2nd Main, Someshwara Nagar,
Jayanagar 1st Block,
Bangalore - 560 011.
5. Sri G.Nagarajaiah Setty,
S/o.J.R.Gurappa Setty,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at Uthanur Post & Village,
Mulbagal Taluk,
Kolar District.
6. Sri V.Hanumaiah,
S/o.Late H.S.Venkatappa,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.115, 19th Cross,
7th Main, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 76.
7. Smt.Jayamma,
W/o.S.Channaiah,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.116C, 5th 'A' Main,
GNS Reddy Road, N.S.Palya,
B.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 076.
8. Sri Kalidas Babu,
S/o.S.Channaiah,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No. 116C, 5th 'A' Main,
GNS Reddy Road, N.S.Palya,
B.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 076.
9. Sri R.Murugan,
S/o.Ranganathan,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.94/14,
Nanjappa Colony
3
Annasandra Colony,
Bangalore - 560 017.
10. Sri Prasanna N.Nadig,
S/o.M.N.Nagaraja Rao,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.56,
Venkataswamappa Garden,
Bhageerath Nagar,
7th Block, 4th Phase,
BSK 3rd Stage, 48/1,
Bangalore - 560 085.
11. Sri S.Ramesh,
S/o.Obaiah,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.4, Nellorepuram,
T.R.Nagar, New Thippasandra Post,
Bangalore - 560 075.
12. Sri R.Muniraju,
S/o.Late Rama Swamy,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.25,
New Thippasandra Post,
Nellur Puram,
Bangalore - 560 017.
13. Sri S.Vasu,
S/o.Late Babu Rao,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at C/o.No.66,
8th Cross, 2nd Main,
Someshwara Nagar,
1st Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 011.
14. Sri R.Sudhakar,
S/o.Ranganatha E.
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.2, 6th Cross,
Vimanapura Post,
Anasandra Palya,
4
Bangalore - 17. .. Petitioners
(By Sri M.Shivappa, Senior Counsel for Sri H.J.Ananda,
Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bangalore South Sub-Division,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Tahsildar,
Bangalore South Taluk,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records
from the R2 pertains to the order dated 23.7.2011 vide
Annexure-A, etc.,
W.P.Nos.5831/2012 & 5871/2012:
BETWEEN:
Sri R.Venkateshappa,
S/o.Banajigara Ramappa,
Aged about 72 years,
5
R/at No.10, Govindashetty Palya,
Electronic City Post,
Bangalore - 560 010. .. Petitioner
(By Sri M.Shivappa, Senior Counsel for Sri H.J.Ananda,
Advocate for M/s.Law Inc.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bangalore South Sub-Division,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
5. The Tahsildar,
Bangalore South Taluk,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records
from the R3 pertains to the order dated 23.7.2011 vide
Annexure-A, etc.,
6
W.P.Nos.41318-41319/2011:
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Mohammed Ishaq,
S/o.Mohammed Sulaiman,
Aged about 43 years,
Residing at No.18, 2nd Cross,
Lalbagh East Road,
Bangalore - 560 004.
2. Smt.Sameen Kowsar,
W/o.Mohammed Ishaq,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at No.18,
2nd Cross, Lalbagh East Road,
Bangalore - 560 004. .. Petitioners
(By Sri H.Kantharaj, Advocate for Sri K.R.Lingaraju, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bangalore South Sub-Division,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Special Tahsildar,
Bangalore South Taluk,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore. ... Respondents
7
(By Sri Chithappa, Spl. G.A.)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
23.07.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A,
etc.,
W.P.Nos.7638-7639/2012:
BETWEEN:
Sri B.Balaji,
S/o.Bathiyappa,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.6, Property No.10/P6
(Old No.10), Katha No.10/P6,
Doddnagamangala Village,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 100. .. Petitioner
(By Sri M.Shivappa, Senior Counsel for Sri H.J.Ananda,
Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bangalore South Sub-Division,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Tahsildar,
8
Bangalore South Taluk,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore-560 009. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records
from the R3 pertains to the order dated 23.7.2011 vide
Annexure-A, etc.,
W.P.Nos.10885-10900/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Anand Raj,
S/o.M.Muthu,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at D-No.987/B, 2nd Cross,
Near Deepa Nursing Home,
Marathahally
Bangalore - 37.
2. Smt.Usha,
W/o. Anand Raj,
S/o.M.Muthu,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at D-No.987/B, 2nd Cross,
Near Deepa Nursing Home,
Marathahally
Bangalore - 37.
3. Smt.Gayathri Anand Raman,
W/o.N.Ananda Raman,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at D.No.C 5/8, DRDO Quarter,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore.
4. Sri M.Bhaskar,
S/o.M.Muthu,
Aged about 40 years,
9
R/at D.No.B-82,
Block No.II, ISRO,
New Land Quarters,
Bangalore - 560 075.
5. Smt.Shakuntala,
W/o.Sridharan,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at D/No.13, 5th Cross,
C.Ramaiah Layout,
Kacharanakka Halli,
St.Thomas Town Post,
Bangalore - 560 084.
6. Smt.Latha Nithyanand,
W/o.Nithyanand Parashuram,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at D/No.55, Sadanandanagar,
NGEF Layout,
Indiranagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 073.
7. Sri Binoy T.G.
S/o. Late Gopalan T.N.
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.5, 5th Main Road,
5th Cross, Malleshpalya,
New Thippasandra,
Bangalore - 560 075.
8. Sri Thirupathi,
S/o.Late Muniappa,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at C/o.No.16, 22 'D' Cross,
1st Main, Vignana Nagara
(Near Finish Garden Apartment)
Malleshpalya,
New Thippasandra,
Bangalore - 560 075.
9. Sri A.Murugesh,
S/o.Matha,
Aged about 36 years,
10
R/at No.380, 'A' Block,
20th Main Road,
Jaraki Ram Layout,
M.S.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 033.
10. Sri A.Raju,
S/o.Alagaraswamy,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.48/1,
G.M.Palya Main Road,
New Thippasandra,
Bangalore - 560 075.
11. Sri D.Murugan,
S/o. Sri Doraiswamy,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.200/A,
Opp: Chinmaya Apartments,
S.G.Palya, C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 093.
12. Sri M.Palani,
S/o.Muthaiah,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.57, Berasandra Main Road,
C.v.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 093.
13. Sri P.Seattu,
S/o.Pariyathambi,
Aged about 33 years,
22 'D' Cross, 1st Main,
Vignananagar,
New Thippasandra,
Bangalore - 560 075.
14. Smt.N.Rashmi,
W/o.Manjunath P.N.
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.45/1,
11th 'A' Main,
Lakshmi Kantha Kalyana Mantapa
11
Road, Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore.
15. Smt.S.Saraswathi
W/o.Saravan,
R/at No.358-E/245,
Kalappa Layout,
2nd Cross, 3rd Main,
Basavanagar,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore - 560037.
16. Sri A.Vadivel,
S/o.Armugam,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.358-E/245,
Kalappa Layout,
2nd Cross, 3rd Main,
Basavanagar,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore - 560037. .. Petitioners
(By Sri M.Shivappa, Senior Counsel for Sri H.J.Ananda,
Advocate for M/s.Law Inc.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Buildings,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bangalore South Sub-Division,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
12
4. The Tahsildar,
Bangalore South Taluk,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records
from the R3 pertains to the order dated 23.7.2011 vide
Annexure-A, etc.,
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing
in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
All these petitions are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the questions of facts and law involved are the same.
2. In all these petitions, the challenge is to the Special Deputy Commissioner's ('Spl.D.C.' for short) order, dated 23.07.2011 (Annexure-A) holding that the lands at Sy.Nos. 10 and 11 of Doddanagamangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk were never granted. By the impugned order, the Spl.D.C. has given a direction for the deletion of the names of the grantees or the persons, under whom they claim, from the revenue records.
13
3. In W.P.Nos.13431-13444/2012, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the land measuring 2 acres at Sy.No.10 was granted to one Smt.Muniyamma on 21.06.1979. On the formation of the layout on the said lands, the petitioners have purchased the sites by registered sale deeds.
4. Sri M.Shivappa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri H.J.Ananda for the petitioners submits that in the guise of cancelling the mutation entries, the Spl.D.C. has cancelled the land grant itself. He submits that pursuant to the grant, the saguvali chit is also issued and that the mutation entry also stands in favour of the grantee. He submits that in one breath the Spl.D.C. holds that there is no grant and in the next breath Spl.D.C. takes the stance that the land-grant may be there, but the land grant documents are fabricated.
14
5. Sri Shivappa also submits that some of the petitioners have even put up the construction after getting the plan sanctioned by the concerned panchayat.
6. In W.P.Nos.5831/2012 and 5871/2012, the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas at Sy.No.11 was granted to the petitioner. On the grant of the said land, the Tahsildar had issued the saguvali chit (Annexure-D) and has effected mutation entry in favour of the petitioner.
7. Sri M.Shivappa, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the records reveal that the petitioner/his ancestors have been in possession and cultivation of the land from 1962-63 itself. As a matter of fact, the petitioner/his ancestors had even received the notice calling upon them to vacate the unauthorised occupation. It is only on confirming the petitioner's occupation that the land-grant came to be made.
8. In W.P.Nos.41318-41319/2011, the petitioners are the purchasers of seven items of the lands standing at Sy.Nos. 10 and 11 from B.Rama Reddy, Obalalppa, Madappa, 15 Ramappa, Muniraju, M.P.Erappa and Rudrappa Reddy who were granted the lands in 1979. The copies of the sale deeds are produced as Annexures B, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 and B6.
9. Sri Kantaraju, the learned counsel appearing for Sri K.R.Lingaraju for the petitioners submits that the Spl.D.C. has not considered the relevant material before coming to the conclusion that there has been no grant at all. He submits that the Government issued the Government Order, dated 01.09.1977 (Annexure-D) directing the Deputy Commissioners of all the districts to take immediate action to grant the land to the landless unauthorised occupants. The maximum extent prescribed was two hectares of dry land or its equivalent. It is pursuant to the said Government Order that the Spl.D.C. on being satisfied that 9 persons are in unauthorised occupation and passed the grant order giving 16 acres to the said 9 persons. In this regard, he brings to my notice the Official Memorandum, dated 12.01.1979 (Annexure-H).
16
10. He submits that the records disclose that the Spl.D.C.'s order granting the land was sent to the Office of the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar for further action. He submits that the Spl.D.C. has not appreciated that the voluminous correspondence anterior and posterior to the grant order cannot be manipulated or fabricated, just because he finds that the signature of one M.Vittala Rao, the then Gazetted Assistant to the Divisional Commissioner is forged. Sri Kanakaraj submits that the Spl.D.C. is silent on the signatures found on the Government Order, dated 01.09.1977, the Official Memorandum, dated 12.01.1979 (Annexure-H) and the saguvali chit, dated 21.06.1979 (Annexure-J). They are signed by the Under Secretary to the Government, the Spl.D.C. and the Tahsildar respectively.
11. The learned counsel also takes exception to the Spl.D.C. holding that the said Gazetted Assistant's signature is forged. He can come to such a conclusion only if he has identified the signature on the document in question with the admitted signature on any other document. In the absence of these exercises, the Spl.D.C.'s conclusions are not 17 sustainable. He also takes exception to the Government flogging the issue after 35 years of the issuance of the grant order.
12. In W.P.Nos.7638-7639/2012 the facts of the case in brief according to the petitioner's version are that the lands measuring 1 acre 30 guntas standing at Sy.No.10 was granted to one Narayanappa in 1979. This was followed by the issuance of the saguvali chit (Annexure-C). On the formation of the layout in the said land by the said Narayanappa, the petitioner purchased the site.
13. Sri M.Shivappa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri H.J.Ananda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on purchasing the site, the petitioner's name is entered in the property register of the concerned village panchayat. The petitioner has got the plan sanctioned, constructed the house and has been residing there. He submits that the petitioner has already obtained the electricity connection to the said house property. He submits that the property is also being assessed for the 18 property tax. He submits that as the property now falls within the limits of the village panchayat and is no more an agricultural property, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to initiate and conclude any proceedings against the petitioner.
14. In W.P.Nos.10885-10900/2012, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the land measuring 1 acre 30 guntas standing at Sy.No.10 was granted to one Narayanappa. This was followed by the issuance of the saguvali chit on 21.06.1979 (Annexure-C). The RTC extracts stood in the name of the original grantee. The petitioners have all purchased the sites from Naraynappa on his forming the layout in the said land. Sri Shivappa has the same submissions in these petitions which he has advanced in the earlier writ petitions.
15. Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the predecessor of the present incumbent in the office of the Spl.D.C. has found that the signatures of the 19 officers such as Assistant Commissioner, Gazetted Assistant, Divisional Commissioner and the Spl.D.C., etc., are all forged. The order expressly contains the finding that the signature of the M.Vittal Rao, the then Gazetted Assistant to the Divisional Commissioner and of one Sangappa, the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bangalore are forged signatures. As there is no grant at all, the entering of the names of the persons who claim to be the grantees and/or of the persons claiming under the alleged grantees cannot be sustained.
16. The submissions of the learned advocates have received my thoughtful consideration. There are three dimensions revolving round the issue of the land-grant:
(a) If there is no land-grant at all, the entries made in favour of the private parties based on the spurious claims of the land-grant are bound to be deleted; the lands in question are to be shown as the Government lands.
(b) If the land-grant is illegal, then the entries made based on them cannot be changed in exercise of the power 20 conferred by Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The exercise of the power conferred by Section 136 of the said Act is only for correcting the revenue entry. In taking this view, I am fortified by this Court's decision in the case of KUNNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2012 (1) KLJ 28. Paras 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 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 21 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.
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."22
(c) If the land grant is legal but if the grantee has violated the conditions of grant, the grant has to be rescinded.
17. In the instant case, the Spl.D.C. holds that there is no grant at all. His reasoning is that the petitioners' claims are all based on forged documents. The fact finding exercise in respect of the claims on the immovable property has to be done with all seriousness and circumspection.
18. At the first blush, the impugned order looks attractive, but if one goes deep into it, he finds that it is unsupportable for the following reasons:
(a) The Spl.D.C. has excluded the relevant materials from consideration. He has not looked into the Government Order, dated 01.09.1977 and the correspondence in the aftermath of its issuance. Further, he has not verified as to whether the copies of the grant order were endorsed to the Divisional Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar for information and/or needful action. If the grant-
order is received by the offices of the Divisional 23 Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar and if the said officers have acted on it, the version of fabrication becomes unbelievable, unless the Spl.D.C. finds some clinching evidence to the contrary. The saguvali chit is not considered by the Spl.D.C. Even assuming that the records are not available in the Tahsildar's office, it is incumbent on the Spl.D.C. to get the contemporary records from the concerned office.
(b) The Spl.D.C. cannot be content holding that all the signatures are forged. It is not known as to whether he has compared the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures.
(c) The Spl.D.C., who has passed the impugned order, appears to have gone by his predecessor's enquiry. His predecessor's enquiry report is also to be taken into account. But the successor Spl.D.C. cannot rely on it to the exclusion of all other relevant materials. There has to be some independent application of mind.
24
19. What are involved are the parties' precious rights in the immovable properties. The matter requires re- consideration. I am therefore quashing the impugned order in so far as it pertains to the petitioners' lands. The Spl.D.C. is directed to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with law and then take a decision in the matter. The petitioners shall appear before the Spl.D.C. on 27.12.2012 without waiting for any notice from the said respondent.
20. It is made clear that, if on holding the re- enquiry in the letter and spirit of this order, if the Spl.D.C. arrives at the conclusion that there is no grant at all, the revenue entries standing in favour of the petitioners and/or their predecessors-in-title are liable to be deleted. However, if the Spl.D.C. holds that the land grant is indeed made but it is illegal, he cannot order the deletion of their names in the proceedings under Section 136, because, as stated hereinabove, the proceedings for cancelling/withdrawing/rescinding have to be done in independent and separate proceedings and in a 25 manner known to law. The proceedings for cancelling the land grant cannot be initiated invoking Section 136 of the said Act.
21. If it is confirmed that the bits of agricultural lands are sold as sites, without there being any conversion order or without there being any approval order for the formation of the layout, the consequences have to follow. It is also not known why and how the Sub-Registrar registered the sale deeds in respect of the sites carved out of the agricultural lands, without the N.A. (non-agricultural) conversion order and without the approval order for the formation of the lay- out.
22. In the result, I pass the following order:-
i) The impugned order is quashed insofar as it pertains to the petitioners' properties.
ii) The petitioners and/or their respective learned advocates shall appear before the Spl.D.C. on 27.12.2012 without waiting for any notice from him.26
iii) The Spl.D.C. is directed to hold a fresh enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether the land is granted to the persons in question.
iv) If the Government forms the view that the land is granted in violation of any provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, it may initiate the cancellation proceedings, but in independent and appropriate proceedings and not in the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. This observation is made because the Spl.D.C in his impugned order states that the lands are 'Sarkari-Mufat Kaval' lands. If such proceedings are initiated, it is open to the petitioners to resist the same on all tenable grounds, which also includes taking the ground of delay and laches on the part of the Government.
v) The Spl.D.C. shall hold a fresh enquiry and dispose of the remanded matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within an outer limit of four months from 27.12.2012.
vi) If the Spl.D.C. comes to the conclusion that the lands are indeed granted, the names of the grantees or the persons under whom they claim 27 are to be shown in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question. But the same shall be subject to the consequences which follow on account of the unauthorised formation of the layout and selling of the sites.
vii) The submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners that the petitioners shall not alienate or create any charge on the properties in question until the disposal of the remanded matter, is placed on record.
23. These petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-