Karnataka High Court
Sri. Muniyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:12510
WP No. 3776 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 3776 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
S/O NAMJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKASANNE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA,
W/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKASANNE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
Digitally signed
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
by
DHARMALINGAM
Location: HIGH 3. SMT. KAMALAMMA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA D/O LATE. VENKATAMMA,
W/O NARASIMACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO.619, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS, CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
4. SRI. VISHWANATH A.,
S/O LATE. ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:12510
WP No. 3776 of 2024
5. SMT. NETRAVATHI A.,
D/O LATE. ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
PETITIONER NO. 4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT 741/4, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
M.M.LAYOUT, KAVALBYRASANDRA,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H. N. MANJUNATH PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:12510
WP No. 3776 of 2024
5. SRI. N. GOPAL,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE,
DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
6. SRI. GUNAVANTHA,
OFFICIAL OF HORTICULTURE,
DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENTS DATED 14.12.2023 BEARING
NO.LND.CR.32/2022-23, NO.LND.CR.36/2022-23, NO.LND.CR.
37/ 2022-23 AND NO.LND.CR.38/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-
A1 TO A4 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 TO 3 TO CARRY OUT THE PHODI WORK FORTHWITH BY
IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2023 PASSED IN
W.P.NO.15649/2022 (KLR) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-Q
WITHOUT GIVING ANY LAME EXCUSES, WITHIN 2 WEEKS
(SINCE THEY HAVE TAKEN MORE THAN 8 MONTHS) SINCE
THEY HAVE ALL THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR
PHODI WORKS, AS EXPLAINED UNDER PARA 3A. ABOVE AS
PER ANNEXURE-B, C, D, E, F AND G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:12510
WP No. 3776 of 2024
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this case presents a very dismal picture of respondent- Revenue Authorities, who are hand in glove with respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are the officers of Horticulture Department and the Revenue Authorities are trying to ensure that although the Horticulture Department lost the case against the petitioners right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, nevertheless the request made by the petitioners for conducting phodi and durasthi will be frustrated at any cost. Learned counsel submits that after the petitioners came out successful against the Horticulture Department which had laid a claim that land in question was granted to them and the said contention was negated by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners sought for phodi and durasthi of the lands in question. However, once again attempts were made to frustrate the petitioners by contending that they did not furnish the original documents or certified copies of the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:12510 WP No. 3776 of 2024 same. This Court by order dated 10.08.2022 in W.P.No.15649/2022 had directed the petitioners to file an online application seeking phodi and durasthi and directions were also issued to the concerned authorities to conduct the phodi and durasti within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application.
2. Thereafter, a contra stand was taken by the Revenue Authorities that online applications will be permissible only in respect of Hiduvali land and not in respect of granted lands. When such a submission was made before the Division Bench in C.C.C.No.140/2023, the Division Bench reserved liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court for seeking modification of order dated 10.08.2022. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 25.05.2023 directed that the writ petition itself shall be treated as an application for phodi and durasthi and Tahasildar was directed to consider the application and conduct phodi and durasthi within a period of three months. When the directions issued by this Court were not -6- NC: 2024:KHC:12510 WP No. 3776 of 2024 complied, the petitioners once again filed a contempt petition in C.C.C.No.1029/2023. During the course of the proceedings before the contempt court, it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that since the petitioners did not produce the original documents or certified copies, as per law the matter was placed before the Missing File Reconstruction Committee for necessary orders for reconstruction of the original records. The Hon'ble Division Bench disposed of the contempt petition with a direction to the Committee to expeditiously consider the matter and not later within six months from the date of communication at the hands of the Tahasildar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in order to substantiate the contention of the petitioners that the Revenue Authorities are playing fraud on this Court, the petitioners have furnished a certified copy recently issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 08.01.2024, a certified copy of the official memorandum dated 26.05.1984 at Annexure-B and certified copy of a -7- NC: 2024:KHC:12510 WP No. 3776 of 2024 communication dated 24.04.1984 at Annexure-C issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub Division to Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District. Learned counsel therefore submit that it is unacceptable that the Revenue Authorities can contend that there are no original records and therefore matters has been placed before the committee for building up the records. Learned counsel vehemently contends that when the original records are available in the office of the Tahasildar, the Tahasildar could not have issued the impugned endorsements stating that unless the records are built the phodi and durasthi cannot be conducted.
4. This Court therefore directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District to ascertain factually as to whether the original records are available in the office of the Tahsildar. The Deputy Commissioner was also required to file an Affidavit before this Court while producing the original records. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Advocate has today filed an -8- NC: 2024:KHC:12510 WP No. 3776 of 2024 Affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District. In paragraph No.3 of the Affidavit, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the issuance of certified copy of the Official Memorandum bearing No.B.DIS.LND.SR.518/ 1984-85, dated 26.05.1984. In fact, the original of the said Official Memorandum is also placed before this Court. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate seeks to contend that the Official Memorandum issued by the Assistant Commissioner in LND RUC 315/1982-83 dated 24.04.1982 is not available in the office of the Assistant Commissioner. In fact, it is stated that for the particular year 1982-83, the Official Memoranda issued by the Assistant Commissioner commences from No.1/1982- 83 and ends at 164/1982-83. It is therefore sought to be contended that the Official Memorandum bearing No.LND RUC 315/1982-83 dated 24.04.1982 has not been issued by the Assistant Commissioner and the documents produced by the petitioners are concocted documents. The learned Additional Government Advocate would therefore contend that the Deputy Commissioner has issued Official -9- NC: 2024:KHC:12510 WP No. 3776 of 2024 Memorandum bearing No.B.DIS.LND.SR.518/1984-85 dated 26.05.1984, without verifying the records.
5. If this is the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent-State and the Revenue Authorities, this Court should say without hesitation that the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners which was recorded on 12.03.2024 that this case presents a very dismal picture of the respondent Revenue Authorities should be accepted. This Court should notice the fact that the very same submissions were advanced at the hands of the respondent-State and the Revenue Authorities before the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.422/2013 and connected matters. It was submitted at the hands of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State that the petitioners herein have committed an act of fraud and as on the date of committing the fraud, the actual extent of land in possession of the Horticulture Department was 18 acres and 06 guntas. It was therefore submitted that the act of fraud on the part of the petitioners is proved by the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12510 WP No. 3776 of 2024 material on record and therefore, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and unsustainable in law. In fact it was contended that the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not permit the High Court to re-appreciate the factual findings. The Hon'ble Division Bench having considered all these contentions, rejected the submissions made on behalf of the respondent-State, the Revenue Department and the Horticulture Department. It was held that 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 an extent of 17 acres were granted to 7 farmers and the same cannot be faulted. The respondent- State and the Revenue Authorities including the Horticulture Department took up the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.40038/2022 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition stating that it did not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12510 WP No. 3776 of 2024 order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The learned Additional Government Advocate has also produced the original Darakasth Register and Mutation Register and contended that there is no such entry regarding the grant orders passed by the Tahsildar.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners is therefore right in submission that when the contention of the State Government and its authorities and the Horticulture Department, regarding the claim of the petitioners were considered and rejected, the Revenue Authorities or the Survey Settlement Authorities should not be permitted to re-agitate the same once again. The petitioners are seeking phodi and durasth consequent to the orders passed by this Court confirming the grant in their favour and the orders passed by this Court being upheld at the hands of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court therefore finds that the impugned endorsement dated 14.12.2023 declining to conduct the phodi and durasth on the ground that the original records are not available, cannot be sustained. The original Official Memorandum issued by the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12510 WP No. 3776 of 2024 Deputy Commissioner bearing No.B.DIS.LND.SR.518/ 1984-85 dated 26.05.1984 was made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate and the original has been perused by this Court. That being the position, the respondent-Tahsildar and the Survey Settlement Authorities will not be permitted to decline the representation given by the petitioners for phodi and durasth.
7. With the above facts in mind, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the respondent-Tahsildar and Survey Settlement Authorities are finding it difficult to identify the particular pieces of lands in terms of the Official Memorandum, then the Tahsildar shall issue notice to all the 7 grantees as found in the Official Memorandum dated 26.05.1984 issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The extent of lands granted in favour of each of the 7 grantees is explicitly clear from the Official Memorandum. The Tahsildar and the Survey Settlement Authorities shall fix the boundaries in terms of the lands that would be identified by the 7 grantees and thereafter proceed to
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12510 WP No. 3776 of 2024 conduct the phodi & durasth and assign new numbers to the individual extents of grants. It is made clear that the Tahsildar or the Survey Settlement Authorities will not be permitted to decline to proceed with the phodi and durasth on the ground that the petitioners are not in possession of the respective pieces of lands.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsements dated 14.12.2023 at Annexures-A1, A2, A3 and A4 issued by the respondent- Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk, are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Tahsildar, is hereby directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in terms of the orders dated 25.05.2023 in W.P.No.15649/2022, while extending the period for compliance by another three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
9. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL: CT:PH