Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Anjinappa on 4 July, 2019
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT APPEAL NO.4224 OF 2013 (KLR-LG) &
WRIT APPEAL NOs.4289-4291 OF 2013 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PHODIUM BLOCK
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
VISHWESHWARA TOWERS
BENGALURU - 560001
4. THE TAHSILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
DEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)
2
AND:
1. SRI ANJINAPPA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/O T HOSAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
2. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O CHIKKASANNE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
3. SMT VENKATAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/O NO.619, IST MAIN
2ND CROSS, CHAMARAJAPET
BENGALURU - 560018
SINCE DEAD, BY
3A. SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O. NARASIMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT. NO.619, 1ST MAIN
2ND CROSS, CHAMARAJANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560018
4. SMT PARVATHAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O. CHIKKASANNE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
3
(BY SRI H.N.M. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S.4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT
PETITION NOs.43477-43480/2012 (KLR-LG) DATED
16/01/2013.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the State against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.01.2013, in W.P.Nos.43477 - 43480 of 2012, wherein the learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions of both the parties to the lis allowed the petitions with liberty to the State to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, if need arises. Being aggrieved by the same, these writ appeals are filed.
2. The sum and substance of the appeals are that, the appellants - State contends that the respondents claiming to be the grantees have committed an act of fraud in respect of the lands in survey No.21 of Poojanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli taluk, 4 Bengaluru Rural District. It is the submission that on 23.10.1974, 5 acres of land was granted in favour of the Horticulture department. But in reality, the Horticulture Department was in occupation of 18 acres and 6 guntas in Sy.No.21. Moreover, it is contended that the private respondents made false representation by stating that they are in possession of the lands since 20 years, though unauthorisedly cultivating the same. The grievance of the respondents, however is that, without notice, the RRT Sheristedar, deleted the names of the respondents from the Record of Rights and entered the name of Government, by order dated 26.01.2004, on a public holiday i.e., Republic Day. When the respondents approached the Assistant Commissioner, complaining of the removal of their names from the RTC, the Assistant Commissioner sought a report from the Tahsildar. Upon hearing all the aggrieved parties, including the Horticulture Department, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 31.03.2006 declaring that the grant of 17 acres to seven farmers was in accordance with law and therefore, directed the 5 Tahsildar to re-enter the names of the respondents in the RTC.
3. Since the Tahsildar did not comply with the directions of the Assistant Commissioner, the respondents once again approached the Assistant Commissioner. In the meanwhile, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was questioned before the Deputy Commissioner, by persons unconnected with the matter. It is submitted that during the course of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, a letter dated 17.07.2007 written by the Deputy Director of Horticulture to the Director of Horticulture, was placed on record. It is contended that in the said letter, the Deputy Director had in fact admitted that what was granted to the Horticulture Department was only 5 acres in Sy.No.21 and the said 5 acres was made over to the Regional Occupational Health Centre (South), Indian Council of Medical Research and beyond that 5 acres, the Horticulture Department was not in possession of any portion of Sy.No.21. In the meanwhile, the Horticulture Department constituted a two Member 6 Enquiry Committee consisting of the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division, as Chairman and the other Member being the Director of Horticulture Department. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that constitution of the Committee itself is questionable since an interested party i.e., the Director of Horticulture Department forms a part of the Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee submitted a report before the State Government. Consequent to the same, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, directed the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the grant made in favour of the respondents herein. Following the said directions, the Deputy Commissioner, despite the pendency of Revision Petition No.150/2006-07, issued show-cause notice dated 02.06.2009 to the respondents. The respondents, challenged the show- cause notice before this Court in W.P.Nos.3362- 3363/2010. The said petition was dismissed with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to give opportunity to the respondents and thereafter dispose of the show-cause notice in accordance with law. 7
4. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 26.10.2009, dismissed the revision petition filed by the third parties who were unconnected with the grant made in favour of the respondents. However, by another order dated 20.02.2010, consequent to the remand made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner held that the respondents did not produce cogent evidence to show that they were cultivating land bearing Sy.No.21, measuring 4 acres from 20 years prior to the date of the grant. It was further held that the application was made by the respondents when he was aged 28 years and the claim that he was cultivating the lands for 20 years prior to the date of application, could not be believed and therefore, proceeded to cancel the grant made in favour of Sri N.Muniyappa.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the respondents approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, dismissed the appeal and consequently, the respondents approached this Court in W.P.Nos.43477- 8 43480/2012. The learned Single Judge set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner as well as the KAT and allowed the writ petitions. Hence, the writ appeals are filed by the State.
6. Learned counsel for the grantees / respondents submits that there is no act of fraud committed by the respondents. They were cultivating the land since 20 years, prior to the application seeking regularisation. Accordingly, on finding that the applicant was in authorized cultivation of Sy.No.21 measuring 4 acres and on being satisfied that the applicant met all the requirements of law, lands were granted in their favour on 30.05.1984 in survey No.21 of Poojanahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. Their names are reflected in the revenue entries from 1989- 1990 till 2003-2004 and from 26.01.2004, their names have been deleted.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants - State reiterated the act of fraud allegedly committed by the respondents and it is 9 submitted that as on the date of committing the fraud, the actual extent of land in the possession of Horticulture department was 18 acres 06 guntas. Hence, it is submitted that the act of fraud is proved by the material on record and therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the KAT be confirmed. It is the contention that as per Article 227 of Constitution of India, the learned single Judge should not have reconsidered the facts which were established before the fact finding authority and the Appellate forum. It is submitted that under Article 227, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the factual findings. The learned Single Judge has acted as an Appellate Court and set aside the order of the Tribunal by allowing the petitions which is erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, he seeks that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the KAT be confirmed.
8. We have heard the learned AGA for the appellants-State and learned counsel for the respondents.
10
9. The contention of the learned AGA as regards the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution deserves to be rejected. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, power of superintendence over all the subordinate courts and tribunal is vested with the High Court. The nature of superintendence under revisional power is both administrative and judicial. In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khimji Vidhu Vs. Premier High School reported in AIR 2000 SC 3495 to substantiate the position that the power of the High Court under Article 227 is not confined only to correct errors of jurisdiction and the like, but the power extends both to administrative as well as judicial functions of the subordinate Courts and Tribunals. Therefore, the contention of the learned AGA cannot be countenanced.
10. The learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. 11 reported in 2003 (6) SCC 675, wherein it is held as under:
"(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction."
11. Further, in the case of T.G.N.Kumar Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2011 SC 708, it is held that the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. In any event, the power of superintendence cannot be exercised 12 to influence the subordinate judiciary to pass any order or judgment in a particular manner.
12. The decisions in Surya Dev's case and T.G.N.Kumar's case, reiterate that the High Court's power of supervisory jurisdiction extends not only to administrative functions of lower judiciary and Tribunal, but also on the judicial side. As pointed out above, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
13. In the light of the said legal position, the learned Single Judge was right in re-appreciating the factual aspects and having found that only 5 acres were granted to the Horticulture Department and the remaining portion of Sy.No.21 to the extent of 17 acres 13 being granted to the respondents - farmers who were in unauthorized cultivation, cannot be faulted.
14. The next question is whether the granting authority is empowered to initiate action, unilaterally, on the premise that fraud was practiced by the respondents while seeking grant of Government land? It is by now well settled that a settled position cannot be unsettled on the ground of suspicion. In the instant case, the RRT Sheristedar is found to have deleted the names of the respondents from the RTC, unilaterally, without notice, after 24 years consequent to the grant. The Assistant Commissioner, rightly set aside the action of the Sheristedar and directed re-entry of the names of the grantees in the RTC. What is even more glaring is that the basis for seeking cancellation of the grant was that 17 acres of land which were granted in favour of the respondents - farmers, was indeed belonging to the Horticulture Department. What is noticeable is that, no such complaint was made by the Horticulture Department. Action was sought to be initiated by some third parties who were in no way concerned or affected 14 by the grant made in favour of the respondents. During the course of the arguments, it was also pointed out that the Horticulture Department had preferred a Writ Appeal, assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, for reasons best known to the Horticulture Department, the Writ Appeal was withdrawn without seeking/reserving liberty.
15. Further, to substantiate the fact that the grant was made in accordance with law, it is brought to our notice that on the basis of Government Order No.RD 105 LGP 77 dated 01.09.1977 and Government Circular No.RD.16.LGP 79(P) dated 16.10.1979, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, by order dated 30.05.1984, by referring to the Government Order and the Circular, had passed an order de-reserving 17 acres of land in Sy.No.21 which was a gomal tenure, having been satisfied that for the cattle population of the Village, the remaining extent of land would be sufficient for grazing purpose. Therefore, we find that the grant made in favour of the seven farmers, was made in accordance with law and after a period of 24 15 years, the action initiated by the revenue authorities on the premise that fraud was practiced by the applicants while seeking grant, was ill-founded and unsustainable.
16. The respondents are poor agriculturists and they have been granted small extent of lands when there was a condition that the grantees shall not alienate the land for a period of 15 years. *( ) As noted above, the root cause for initiating action for cancellation of the grant was allegation of the appellants - State that the respondents had got the lands granted by playing fraud. Fraud, if at all committed, cannot be committed without the active connivance of the revenue officials or concerned authorities. If it is true that the respondents have obtained the grant by fraud, it is presumed that the Tahsildar or the Assistant Commissioner would have colluded with the respondents. While filing the appeals, the appellants ought to have placed on record the action initiated by the State Government against the revenue authorities and officials who were responsible * Deleted Vide Court Order dated 24.07.2019 16 for such fraudulent grants. It was their duty to list out the persons who committed such fraud and whether the case is inquired into or any action has been initiated against such Officers for having being party to such fraudulent acts. No material is placed on record as to what action was initiated against the revenue officials. It is obvious that whenever such allegations of fraud is made, it is only the poor gullible farmers who are at the receiving end. In the light of the facts narrated above, we deem it fit to hold that the action of the revenue authorities requires to be deprecated.
17. With these observations, we confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE nvj/JT/-