Karnataka High Court
Nagarathnamma S vs State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4237
WP No. 41881 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 41881 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NAGARATHNAMMA S
W/O LATE ALLE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2. DARSHAN GOWDA
S/O LATE ALLE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
BOTH PETITIONERS ARE
RESIDING AT NO.13/1
DARSHAN NILAYA 1ST MAIN ROAD,
SUBEDARA PALYA YESHWANTHPUR
BENGALURU-560022
Digitally signed by ...PETITIONERS
KRISHNAPPA LAXMI
YASHODA
Location: HIGH COURT
(BY SRI. K. SUMAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR
OF KARNATAKA SRI. JAYANTH V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY
3RD FLOOR, VIDHAN SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4237
WP No. 41881 of 2019
KANDAYA BHAVAN
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560009
3. TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.G.BHANUPRAKASH., AAG
FOR SRI. SESHU.V., HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER I
SEPTEMBER 2011 PASSED BY R-2 (i.e. ANNX-A) AS BEING
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA.DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO INCLUDE THE NAMES OF
THE PETITIONER NO.1 IN THE RTCs OF LAND BEARING
SY.NO.112, HAROKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA
HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, MEASURING 3 ACRES 22
GUNTAS AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This is a second round of litigation at the hands of petitioner No.1. Earlier the first petitioner along with her -3- NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019 husband Sri Alle Gowda had filed W.P.No.39393- 39394/2011 calling in question the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District in proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in RRT.2.N.CR.5/2007-08 dated 08.09.2011.
2. A brief background is necessary to be stated to understand as to why this second round of litigation at the hands of the first petitioner.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that one Sri Krishanaiah Shetty had purchased 9 acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.112 of Harokyathanahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under registered sale deed dated 11.03.1968. However, Sri Krishnaiah Shetty filed an application under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1954' for short) seeking regrant of the very same lands, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019 along with other lands such as Sy.Nos.113, 158 and 159 of Harokyathanahalli Village. It is contended that the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition passed an order in favour of Sri Krishnaiah Shetty in Case No.169/1968-69 dated 23.05.1968 regranting the said lands including 9 acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.112 which is the subject matter of this litigation. It is contended that Sri Krishnaiah Shetty sold the land in question in favour of Gopal Das H.Wadhwa under a registered Sale deed dated 24.07.1968. Sri Gopal Das H.Wadhwa sold 3 acres and 22 guntas of land in favour of Sri Alle Gowda, husband of the first petitioner herein and the remaining extent of 3 acres and 8 guntas in favour of Sri Alle Gowda's wife who is none other than petitioner No.1 herein. The two sale deeds were dated 05.06.2004. It is contended that the names of the previous vendors viz., Krishnaiah Shetty and thereafter Gopal Das H.Wadhwa were entered in the land records. However, even before the subsequent purchasers could get their names entered in the land records, proceedings were -5- NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019 initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner on the basis of a report submitted by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk vide letter dated 29.03.2007 that Sy.No.112 was classified as 'nala' and therefore, it could not have been granted to any person.
3. The Special Deputy Commissioner initiated the proceedings in RRT.2.N.CR. 5/07-08 invoking the suo motu powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1964' for short). It is contended that the subsequent purchasers Alle Gowda and Nagarathnamma were not made party to the proceedings. The said purchasers impleaded themselves subsequently and inspite of they producing all the relevant records and information, the Special Deputy Commissioner proceeded to pass an order on 08.09.2011 directing the Tahsildar to delete the name of the then Khatedar Sri Gopal Das H.Wadwa, from the land records in respect of Sy.No.112 measuring 9 acres and 28 guntas.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019
4. Feeling aggrieved, Alle Gowda and the first petitioner herein filed the said writ petition before this Court calling in question the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. This Court by order dated 29.11.2012 held that although the petitioners have produced a copy of the endorsement dated 11.06.1968 which would prima facie indicate that the lands were granted in favour of Sri Krishnaiah Shetty by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, nevertheless the petitioners were not able to produce the said orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. Moreover, this Court was not persuaded to deliver a categorical finding that the petitioners' predecessors-in-title were the registered occupants under the said Act. It was held that the matter requires fact finding exercise which could be undertaken only by a competent Civil Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the sustainability or otherwise of the impugned order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The writ appeal filed -7- NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019 by the writ petitioners in W.A.No.564/2013 was dismissed by order dated 04.08.2014 and the review petition in R.P.No.1047/2014 was also dismissed on 25.09.2014.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Suman, appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that in the memorandum of writ petition all these information have been provided. However, most importantly, it is submitted that on 08.06.2019, the petitioners were able to obtain a certified copy of the order dated 23.05.1968 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition in Case No.169/1968-69. In fact, it is submitted that the certified copy has been issued from the office of the second respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. Having been strengthened by the receipt of the certified copy, the petitioners are before this Court once again contesting the impugned order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings in RRT.2.N.CR.5/2007-08.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019
6. During the course of these proceedings, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State and the Special Deputy Commissioner vehemently contended that a plain perusal of the certified copy of the order dated 23.05.1968 shows that there is a change of the ink in which the order is written in atleast in two places and therefore, the genuinity of the order is in question. However, as directed by this Court, the learned Additional Advocate General had produced the original of the said order which was maintained in the office of the second respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner. On perusal of the order, although this Court found that in two places there was change of ink in which the order was written by hand, nevertheless, in the considered opinion of this Court, it did not make any material difference, since the change in the ink does not indicate that the order was tampered or that it would substantially alter the opinion of the Special Deputy Commissioner. Most importantly, when the document is maintained in the office of the Special Deputy Commissioner, it cannot be contended at -9- NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019 the hands of the Special Deputy Commissioner that the document may not be genuine. The Special Deputy Commissioner is estopped from making such a contention.
7. Be that as it may, it was also sought to be contended at the hands of the learned AAG that the Tahsildar had rightly brought to the notice of the Special Deputy Commissioner that Sy.No.112 of Harokyathanahalli, was marked as 'nala' in the Village map and therefore, the said land could not have been granted in favour of any person.
8. This contention on the part of the respondent- authorities also cannot be accepted. If for any reason it is the opinion of the Special Deputy Commissioner or the State that since Sy.No.112 was a 'nala' which could not have been granted in favour of any person, then the State was required to challenge the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner who had passed the order of regrant under the provisions of the Act, 1954. It is not within the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019 jurisdiction of the Special Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to set aside an order that was passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Act, 1954. Without the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner passed under the provisions of the Act, 1954, being challenged in a manner known to law and getting it set aside, it was impermissible for the Special Deputy Commissioner to order deletion of the names of the grantee from the land records.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have initiated the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act, 1964, and he could not have directed the deletion of the names of the grantees or the subsequent purchasers from the land records, without getting the original order passed under the Act, 1954, set aside in manner known to law. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019 the petitioners, this Court in atleast three cases viz., Smt.Pyari Ma and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.22426/2021 dated 12.01.2022; Smt.S.Nagalakshmi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others in W.P.No.56799/2018 dated 14.01.2022 and Smt.N.Revathi and Others Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division and Another in W.P.No.25877/2017 and connected matters dated 07.02.2022 has held that even where limitation is not prescribed and suo motu powers are invoked for setting aside an order, the same may be done within reasonable time. This Court had noticed the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71 and Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Vs. D.Narasing Rao and Others (2015) 3 SCC 695 and came to a conclusion that even if the title is sought to be disputed on the ground that fraud was played by the grantee while obtaining order of grant, even then such an order has to be challenged and got cancelled within
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019 reasonable time. Such is not the case that comes forth in the present case. The only ground on which the Special Deputy Commissioner sought to delete the names of the grantee and the subsequent purchaser from the land records is that a certified copy of the orders were not produced by the petitioners herein.
10. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have invoked the suo motu powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act, 1964, to set at naught the revenue entries made in favour of the original grantee and the subsequent purchasers.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed while setting aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2011 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in proceedings bearing No.RRT.2.N.CR.5/07-08.
12. The petitioners are permitted to file necessary application to have their names entered in the land
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4237 WP No. 41881 of 2019 records on the strength of the sale deeds. If such an application is filed by the petitioners, the concerned authority viz., the Tahsildar shall consider the same and pass necessary orders for entering the names of the purchasers as per the registered sale deeds.
Ordered accordingly.
The original records furnished by the learned Additional Advocate General are returned to the learned AAG.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-
CT: JL