Karnataka High Court
Smt Venkata Lakshmamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 18 August, 2017
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.3120/2017 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
2. SHRI GOPAL
AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ DHOOMAPPA
3. SMT.GURAMMA
AGED 86 YEARS,
W/O LATE NANJAPPA
ALL ARE R/O CHAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562125. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri RAVI B.NAIK, SR.COUNSEL FOR
Sri M.KRISHNAPPA, ADV.)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G.ROAD
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
K.G.ROAD
2
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106.
4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
NADA KACHERI,
SARJNAPURA HOBLI
SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK-562125.
5. SRI C.M.SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 51 YRS
S/O C.G.MUNISWAMY
CHAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK-562125
BANGALORE DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1-R4;
Sri V.SUDHAKAR, ADV. FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.R.P.10/2016-17 DTD.17.12.2016
PASSED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEX-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, thereby allowing the revision petition filed by 5th respondent herein - Sri C.M.Subramani and remanding 3 the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration.
2. Petitioners claim to be owners of land measuring 4 acres 11 guntas comprised in Sy.No.128 situated at Chambenahalli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. They are claiming under Late Kaka @ Kakappa who had purchased the land in public auction as per D.D.No.2/1928-29. Suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-division, under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in RRT (2)/CR-1/2013-14. Petitioners were not made parties. However, they got themselves impleaded and filed objections. The Special Deputy Commissioner after enquiry passed an order dated 03.07.2015 holding that the land in question was originally purchased by Kaka @ Kakappa through public auction in the year 1928-29. The revenue records reflected the name of one Chennappa in Column No.12/2 of RTC for sometime and thereafter subsequent entries were recorded in the name of Sri Kaka @ Kakappa. The Deputy 4 Commissioner also noticed that the Deputy Tahsildar had effected katha of the land in the name of one Sri C.G.Muniswamy - father of 5th respondent herein. He, however, observed that as petitioner had not challenged the order of the Deputy Tahsildar or the mutation entry No.37/2007-08 in the suo motu proceedings, he was not required to go into the genuineness of the entries made in the RTC. The Special Deputy Commissioner, however, found that grant made in favour of Kaka @ Kakappa predecessor in title of petitioners was legal and valid. It was however observed by the Deputy Commissioner that petitioners could approach the competent authority if they were aggrieved by the mutation entry effected. This order is produced at Annexure-A. Thus, while the question regarding the genuineness of the grant in favour of original owner Kaka @ Kakappa got settled in favour of present petitioners. Controversy regarding validity of mutation entry in respect of Sy.No.128 measuring 4 acres 16 guntas as per M.R.No.37/2007-08 was the subject matter of 5 challenge by the present petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-division.
3. By order dated 04.04.2016 the Assistant Commissioner after conducting enquiry and by placing reliance on the order dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner held that as regards the subject land the same was acquired by Kaka @ Kakappa in public auction; mutation was effected in his name and entries in his name were continued in pahani/RTC since 1969-70 to 2005-06. Therefore, for more than 35 years entries stood in the name of Kaka @ Kakappa. The Assistant Commissioner also noticed that how the Deputy Tahsildar, Sarjapura Hobli, could have effected entries in the name of C.G.Muniswamy without affording opportunity to petitioners herein was ununderstandable. He has also come to the conclusion that in the absence of any alienation made by either Kaka @ Kakappa or his legal heirs to anybody, particularly, in favour of Channappa or Perumaiah under whom C.G.Muniswamy was claiming under the gift deed dated 31.05.2008 registered in 6 M.R.No.318/2008-09, entries could not have been altered. Hence, the order of the Deputy Tahsildar was set aside and as also mutation entry effected. A direction was issued to effect mutation entry in respect of land bearing Sy.No.128 measuring 4 acres 16 guntas in the joint names of petitioners herein who are the legal representatives of original owner of the land - Kaka @ Kakappa. This order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by filing the revision petition.
4. The Deputy Commissioner has remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Assistant Commissioner mainly on the ground that the appeal had been disposed of within thirty days and therefore, the matter required fresh consideration. The Deputy Commissioner has also found that entries effected by virtue of registered gift deed could not have been upset by the Assistant Commissioner.
5. Learned Senior counsel Sri Ravi B. Naik appearing for petitioner contends that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter is 7 unsustainable in law. He mainly submits that the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner is contrary to the order passed earlier on 03.07.2015. It is his submission that as the Special Deputy Commissioner has already found in the order dated 03.07.2015 that there was grant in the name of predecessor in title of the petitioner viz., Kaka @ Kakappa way back in the year 1928-29 and revenue entries had been effected in his name and further that there was no basis for entering the name of Chennappa and subsequently in the name of C.G.Muniswamy S/o. Gundappa the Deputy Commissioner could not have sit in judgment over the said findings already recorded in the previous proceedings.
6. Respondent No.5 though served is absent. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, I find that order sheet produced at Annexure-D maintained by the Assistant Commissioner discloses that matter was 8 posted on 31.03.2016. Both parties had appeared and after hearing both of them, matter was reserved for orders. If that is so, merely because the Appeal was decided expeditiously within one month by the Assistant Commissioner, order passed by the Assistant Commissioner challenged before the Deputy Commissioner could not be characterized as illegal. As long as procedure prescribed has been followed no objection can be taken for expeditious disposal of the Appeal by the Assistant Commissioner. Insofar as the merits of contentions urged, the Deputy Commissioner has himself observed that 5th respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.400/2016 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal seeking declaration of his title over the property. Both parties have to await the decision in the suit. The Deputy Commissioner ought to have disposed of the revision petition directing both parties to await the result of the civil suit. There was no justification for him to upset the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, particularly, in the background of the findings recorded in the earlier 9 proceedings by the Special Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 03.07.2015 in case No.RRT(2)CR-01/13-14 holding that predecessor in title of petitioners had purchased the land in public auction and that petitioners herein succeeded to the same. Whether Channappa S/o. Perumaiah and thereafter C.G.Muniswamy have acquired any right and if so in what manner are matters that have to be decided in the civil suit. Question regarding the valid title acquired as per the gift deed said to have been executed is also to be examined in the civil suit.
8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner and directing all parties to maintain status quo regarding the revenue entries till the judgment is rendered by the Civil Court in O.S.No.400/2016. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP