Karnataka High Court
Vishalamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:32692
WP No. 11018 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 11018 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
VISHALAMMA,
W/O S R KOLLURAIAH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
BETTAMAKKI,
THIRTAHALLI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER,
S.K.DHARMESH,
S/O K S KOLLURAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
Digitally signed BETTAMAKKI,
by CHAITHRA A
THIRTAHALLI TALUK-577 432.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:32692
WP No. 11018 of 2020
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
SHIVAMOGGA,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
SUB-DIVISION MAGISTRATE,
SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
4. TAHASILDHAR,
TIRTAHALLI,
THIRTAHALLI TALUK-577 432,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
5. KARNATAKA PUBLIC LAND CORPORATION LIMITED,
AND MEMBER SECRETARY,
STATE LAND PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE,
3RD FLOOR, OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.S HARISHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 4;
SRI D.R RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.6.2020 PASSED BY THE R-5
VIDE ANNEXURE-N, II) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
DATED 24.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-P ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:32692
WP No. 11018 of 2020
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned status quo order dated 12.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.5/committee and the consequent impugned endorsement dated 24.06.2020 issued by the respondent No.2 acting on the status quo order granted by the respondent No.5/committee. These two orders are under challenge.
2. The case on hand depicts misuse of authority by respondent No.5/committee at the instance of some unscrupulous and vested interest who are denying property rights to the petitioner over the petition properties. The case on hand also reflects how respondent No.5/committee has exceeded its authority in passing the status quo order and further communicating it to respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner not to entertain petitioner's application seeking conversion of the land in question under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020
3. Petitioner is asserting title based on registered sale deed dated 28.10.2010. This property was originally owned by Bheemanakatte Mutt and the same was under
the pontiff Sree Sree Sree RaghutilakaThirta Sri. Padangal.
The pontiff Sree Sree Sree RaghutilakaThirta Sri. Padangal executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one U.Gurumurthy Achar which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 20.05.1980. Based on the said authorization, the said Gurumurthy Achar gifted this property in favour of BDO and Panchayat on 25.11.1981.
The GPA holder further sold 6 acres 37 guntas of land in favour of one Kolluraiah and H.M.Sadashivappa on 31.10.1988. The Tahsildar by taking cognizance of the alienation ordered to mutate the name of Kolluraiah and H.M.Sadashivappa. This purchase was questioned by initiating proceedings under Section 79(a) and (b) of the Land Reforms Act. However, the said proceedings ended in favour of transferees. The first purchaser namely K.S.Kolluraiah and H.M.Sadashivappa sold 2 acres 20 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 guntas of land to one R.M.Manjunath Gowda under registered sale deed dated 08.11.2006.
4. Petitioner's son as a GPA holder purchased 2 acres 11 guntas from K.S.Kolluraiah and H.M.Sadashivappa under registered sale deed 28.10.2010. Though proceedings under Section 79(a) and (b) ended in favour of the transferee, pursuant to petitioner purchasing 2 acres 11 guntas, the villagers started asserting that it is the public property and instituted suit in O.S.No.30/2013 against the petitioner's vendor seeking a declaration that petition property is a public property. The said suit was dismissed holding that petition property is not public property.
5. Petitioner herein was also compelled to file a suit for bare injunction against the complainant in O.S.No.132/2011. The said suit is decreed and the complainant was restrained from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession. The judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.132/2011 is confirmed in -6- NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 appeal in M.A.No.41/2011. The villagers and some vested interest having suffered at the hands of the competent civil Court and more particularly, the complainant herein has lodged a complaint with respondent No.5 alleging that petitioner is meddling with a public property, admittedly being a government land. The respondent No.5 by entertaining the complaint has issued an interim order in the nature of status quo till the committee decided this complaint. This order is communicated by respondent No.5 to respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-N. The Deputy Commissioner has declined to pass orders on the application seeking conversion on the premise that the matter is now seized before the respondent No.5/committee. It is in this background, petitioner is compelled to knock the doors of this Court assailing these two orders.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/committee. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020
7. Before I delve upon the competency of respondent No.5 in entertaining the complaint relating to private property, this Court deems it fit to refer to Section 8 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Section 8(1) and (2) would be relevant and the same is extracted as under:
8. Deputy Commissioner. - (1) The State Government shall by notification, appoint for each district a Deputy Commissioner, [who shall be subordinate to the Regional Commissioner] (2) The Deputy Commissioner shall in his district exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on him under this Act or under any law for the time being in force. He may also exercise such powers and discharge such duties as are conferred and imposed on an Assistant Commissioner under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and in all matters not specially provided for by law, he shall act according to the instructions of the State Government.-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020
8. The respondent No.5/committee is constituted under Section 195. Section 195 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act confers power on the State Government to delegate powers to any officer or authority subordinate to it, thereby authorizing such officer or authority subject to restrictions and conditions. However, there is non- obstante clause applied to Section 195(1). Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out Section 195(1) and (2) which reads as under:
195. Delegation of powers.-- (1) The State Government may, by notification, delegate to any officer or authority subordinate to it, any of the powers conferred on the State Government or any officer subordinate to it under this Act, to be exercised by such officer or authority, subject to such restrictions and conditions, if any, as may be specified in the said notification.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government shall not delegate any of its powers under sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 20, 21, 40, 43, 48, 114, 115, 121 or 125 or the power to make rules under -9- NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 section 197 or the power to remove difficulties under section 201.
9. On examining sub-clause (2) of Section 195 of the Act, there is a clear bar on the State in delegating powers on any authority to delegate any of its powers under Sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 20, 21, 40, 43, 48, 114, 115, 121 or 125.
10. In the present case on hand, Section 8 would be relevant. The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether respondent No.5/committee is justified in entertaining a complaint relating to a private property acquired by the petitioner under registered sale deeds. This Court also needs to examine as to whether respondent No.5 can usurp the powers of Civil Court and issue status quo order which is clearly found to be beyond the powers of the committee for which it is constituted. Therefore, it would be relevant for this Court to extract the object of constituting this respondent No.5/committee. The order constituting respondent No.5/committee can be
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 gathered from Annexure-R2 to the statement of objections. The relevant portion needs to be examined and the same is culled out as under:
ಸ ಯು ವ ಸ ೇ ಾದ ಪ ಮುಖ ಾಯ ಗಳ ಈ
ೆಳಕಂಡಂ ೆ:-
1) ಸ ಾ ಜ ೕನುಗಳ ಭೂ ಕಬ" ೆ ಮತು$ ಅವ&ವ'ಾರದ ಬ)ೆ*
ಜಂ+ ಸದನ ಸ ಸಂಗ ,ದ -ಾ ಯನ.ಯ ಸಾ
ಜ ೕನುಗಳ ಒತು$ವ 0ೆರವ1)ೊ"ಸಲು ಕಂ3ಾಯ ಇ5ಾ6ೆ)ೆ, ಇತ7ೆ
ಸಾ ಇ5ಾ6ೆಗ")ೆ ಮತು$ 8ಾಸನಬದ9 ಸಂ:ೆ;ಗಳ ಮತು$
ಮಂಡ"ಗ")ೆ ಅಗತ& 3ೇ ಶನ ೕಡುವ1ದು 'ಾಗೂ ಈ ಾಯ ದ=>
ಸ ಾ ರ3ೊಂ?)ೆ ಸಮನ.ಯ ಾಯ ವ ಸುವ1ದು.
2) ೆಂಗಳ@ರು ನಗರ A5ೆ> ಾ&B$ಯ=> ಸ ಾ ಭೂ ಕಬ" ೆ
ಗುರು ,ದ -ಾದ ಯ=>Cೕ 7ಾಜ&ದ ಇತ7ೆ A5ೆ>ಗಳ=> ಕಂ3ಾಯ, ಇತ7ೆ ಸ ಾ ಇ5ಾ6ೆಗಳ ಮತು$ 8ಾಸನಬದ9 ಸಂ:ೆ;ಗಳ /ಮಂಡ"ಗಳ ಜ ೕನುಗಳ ಒತು$ವ ಯನುD ಗುರು ಸುವ, 0ೆರವ1)ೊ"ಸುವ ಮತು$ ಸಂರEಸುವ ಬ)ೆ* ಅಗತ& ಕ ಮ ೈ)ೊಳGಲು ಸ ಾ ರ 'ಾಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟJ ಇ5ಾ6ೆಗKೆ@ ಂ?)ೆ ಸಮನ.ಯ ಾಯ ವ ಸುವ1ದು.
11. On reading the object of the committee constituted under Section 195, it is clearly evident that the committee constituted under Section 195 can only issue advisory/directives to the concerned revenue department
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 and its officers. Under Annexure-R1, the committee is empowered to protect the public property in terms of delegation of power conferred on the committee under Section 195(1). Let me examine as to whether in the present case on hand, the respondent No.5/committee could have over stepped and usurped the powers of the civil Court while passing the impugned status quo order.
12. It would be relevant for this Court to examine the decree passed in O.S.No.30/2013 and O.S.No.132/2011. In a suit filed by villagers against the Government and the vendors of petitioner herein seeking a declaration of title seeking to declare that Sy.No.186 measuring 6 acres 37 guntas is a public property. Civil Court has dismissed the suit by holding that petition property is not a public property. Suit filed by the villagers is dismissed by answering issue No.1 in the negative. While answering issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative, the Court held that the villagers who are plaintiffs have failed to prove that sale deed dated 28.10.1988 obtained by
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 defendant Nos.7 and 8 cannot be declared as null and void. Said issue is answered in the negative. Consequently, issue No.3 questioning the sale deed obtained by defendant No.9 in the said suit is also answered in the negative. Similarly, the sale deeds obtained in 2010 and 2011 are held to be valid by answering issue Nos.4 and 5 in the negative.
13. The present petitioner was compelled to file a bare suit for injunction in O.S.No.132/2011 against the complainant who has approached the respondent No.5/committee. The said suit is decreed restraining the complainant from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession. While decreeing the suit, the Court held that petitioner has succeeded in substantiating his right and possession over the petition land as on the date of the filing of the suit.
14. If these significant details are looked into, this Court is of the view that the respondent No.5/committee has exceeded its power in passing the status quo order.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 The petitioner asserts title to the disputed property based on a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2010. This land was originally owned by the Bheemanakatte Mutt, under the authority of Pontiff Sree Sree Sree Raghutilaka Thirta Sri. Padangal. The pontiff executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of U. Gurumurthy Achar, which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 20.05.1980. Acting on this authorization, Gurumurthy Achar gifted the property to the Block Development Officer (BDO) and the Panchayat on 25.11.1981 and later sold 6 acres 37 guntas of land to K.S. Kolluraiah and H.M. Sadashivappa on 31.10.1988. Subsequently, the Tahsildar mutated the names of Kolluraiah and Sadashivappa. The sale was challenged under Sections 79(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, but the proceedings ended in favour of the transferees. Later, Kolluraiah and Sadashivappa sold portions of the land to other parties, including the petitioner's son, who purchased 2 acres 11 guntas under a registered sale deed on 28.10.2010.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020
15. Following the petitioner's purchase, villagers began asserting that the property was public land and filed a suit (O.S.No.30/2013) seeking a declaration that the property was public. This suit was dismissed, confirming that the property is not public. The petitioner was also compelled to file a suit for injunction (O.S.No.132/2011) against the complainant, which resulted in a decree restraining the complainant from interfering with the petitioner's possession. The decree was upheld on appeal (M.A.No.41/2011). Despite these rulings, the complainant lodged another complaint with respondent No.5, alleging that the petitioner was meddling with government land, prompting respondent No.5 to issue an interim order for maintaining the status quo.
16. The main issue to be decided is whether respondent No.5 has the authority to entertain a
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 complaint regarding private property and to issue a status quo order that intrudes upon the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Section 8 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, specifies that a Deputy Commissioner, appointed for each district, exercises all powers and duties conferred by the Act. Section 195 further permits the State Government to delegate certain powers, but not those under specific sections, including Section 8. The non-obstante clause in Section 195(2) clearly bars such delegation, underscoring that respondent No.5 has no jurisdiction over private property matters.
17. The object of respondent No.5, as constituted under Section 195, is limited to issuing advisory or directive powers to revenue departments for protecting public land. The committee's mandate, outlined in Annexure-R2, does not extend to adjudicating private property disputes or issuing
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 orders that effectively override the decisions of competent civil courts. The civil court's judgment in O.S.No.30/2013 and O.S.No.132/2011 is crucial. The court dismissed the villagers' suit, confirming that the petitioner's property is not public land and upholding the validity of the sale deeds. The committee's actions, therefore, amount to overstepping its jurisdiction by issuing a status quo order that conflicts with the civil court's findings.
18. The committee's directive to respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner to refrain from processing the petitioner's application for conversion is beyond its authority. The power vested in the Deputy Commissioner under Section 8 cannot be curtailed by an executive order from respondent No.5. The Division Bench in Prof. A. Lakshmisagar vs. State of Karnataka1 affirmed that the State cannot direct the 1 ILR 1992 Kar 1529
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 Deputy Commissioner in matters specifically covered by Section 8, further reinforcing the committee's lack of authority in this context.
19. The respondent No.5/committee's actions reflect an attempt to entertain a frivolous complaint driven by ulterior motives. The complainant, having lost the case in civil court, sought to use the committee to achieve indirectly what was denied judicially. The impugned order issued by respondent No.5 and the consequential endorsement by respondent No.2 are, therefore, without legal basis and must be set aside.
20. Given the facts and the law, it is evident that the subject matter is a private land, secured by the petitioner through a valid registered sale deed. The petitioner has demonstrated a clear chain of title from the original owner, supported by relevant
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020 documents upheld by civil court judgments. The respondent No.5/committee has overstepped its authority by entertaining a complaint of a purely civil nature, leading to an unlawful order that contravenes established jurisdictional limits. Thus, the impugned communications and orders are not maintainable and are liable to be quashed.
21. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 12.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.5 vide Annexure-N and the consequent endorsement dated 24.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P are hereby quashed;
(iii) The respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner shall forthwith pass appropriate orders on the pending application submitted by the petitioner under Section 95 seeking conversion;
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:32692 WP No. 11018 of 2020
(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60