Karnataka High Court
Smt. Parvathi vs The Deputy Commissioner on 20 September, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 17941 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 17941 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PARVATHI
W/O. VIRUPAKSHA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT KADAGARAVALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MARANAHALLI POST,
SAKLESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN 573134
Digitally signed by
JUANITA THEJESWINI ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. K C SHANTA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN 573 201
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAKLESHPURA SUB DIVISION,
SAKLESHPURA -573134
HASSAN
3. TAHASILDAR
SAKLESHPURA TALUK
SAKLESHPURA 573134
-2-
WP No. 17941 of 2018
4. K P SUBHASH
S/O. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
KADAGARAVALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, SAKLESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN-573134
5. H.A. SAROJAMMA
W/O. H.P. ANAND GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
6. H.A. KUMAR
S/O. H.P. ANAND GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
7. H. A. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. H. P. ANAND GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE
R/AT HETTHURU VILLAGE,
HETTHURU HOBLI, SAKLESHPURA TALUK-573134
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU.V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. K.B. DURGA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN REV.P.NO.12/2014-15 DTD
13.03.2018 VIDE ANNX-A. AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE R-2 HEREIN IN R.A.NO.24/2012-13 DTD 01.10.2014 VIDE
ANNX-B. AND ETC.
-3-
WP No. 17941 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 01.10.2014 at Annexure-B passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 13.03.2018 at Annexure-A.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 seeking to set aside mutation entries made in MR No.2/2004-05 and MR No.6/2004-05. Learned counsel submits that the 4th respondent has admittedly gone before the Assistant Commissioner although he had no personal interest in the land in question. On the other hand, it is sought to be contended on behalf of respondent No.4 that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of gomal land in Sy.No.24, -4- WP No. 17941 of 2018 New Sy.No.131 of Aluvalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk. It is contended that the petitioner is said to have purchased the land in question under a sale deed dated 09.03.2005 at the hands of the respondent No.5 to 7 herein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits while taking this Court through the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner that although the Assistant Commissioner was aware of the fact that respondent No.4 had no personal interest in the land in question, however he entertained the appeal filed under Section 136(2) although the 4th respondent could not have maintained the appeal since he was not an affected person. The Assistant Commissioner holds that in Sy.No.24 which was a gomal land having an extent of 215 acres, the name of Sri Puttaswamigowda was found in the land records from the year 1999-2000 to an extent of 10 acres. However, the name of Sri Puttaswamigowda's father was not reflected in -5- WP No. 17941 of 2018 the land records and therefore it was sought to be held that there were no grant made in favour of any person under whom Puttaswamygowda and thereafter respondents No.5 to 7 acquired right, title and interest over the land in question.
4. Learned counsel submits that at any rate respondent No.4 could not have filed an appeal under Section 136(2) and the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have erred in entertaining the appeal at the hands of the respondent No.4. Learned counsel would further submit that if the respondent authorities are of the opinion that the petitioner could not derive any title under a registered sale deed which was executed by respondents No.5 to 7 herein and if the land in question is a gomal land, then appropriate action to evict the petitioner from the land is required to be initiated by the revenue authorities. The learned counsel would add that it is always the case of the petitioner that his vendors -6- WP No. 17941 of 2018 had right, title and interest on the land in question and the petitioner having acquired the title under the registered sale deed, he is entitled to have his name entered and continued in the land records in terms of 128 of the Act.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, appearing for the respondent No.4 would submit that even if it is admitted that respondent No.4 had no personal interest in the land in question, nevertheless as a dutiful citizen of the country and a responsible citizen of the state, he has brought to the notice of the revenue authorities the unauthorisd entry made in the land records. Learned counsel submits that it has been found by the Assistant Commissioner during the course of the enquiry that there has been overwriting by hand in the land records commencing from the year 1999-2000 and therefore no fault can be found in the action of the 4th respondent in initiating the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner.
-7-WP No. 17941 of 2018
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 136 is available to be initiated by any affected person. When the 4th respondent admits that he has no personal interest in as much as he does not claim any right in the land in question or he does not claim to have made any application seeking grant of the land or regularisaton of unauthorised occupation as is permissible under Section 94-A of the Act, then it cannot be accepted that the respondent No.4 is a affected person who could file an appeal questioning the mutation entry made in the land records. On the other hand, if the revenue authorities have found that the petitioner or his vendors had no legitimate right in respect of the land in question, then appropriate action could have been initiated to evict the petitioner from the land in question. At any rate, at the -8- WP No. 17941 of 2018 instance of respondent No.4 the mutation entry made in the land records cannot be quashed or removed.
7. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions contained in Section 136(2) and 136(3) of the Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 01.10.2014 at Annexure-B passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 13.03.2018 at Annexure-A are hereby quashed and set aside.
8. Nevertheless, the respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings to have the petitioner evicted from the land in question if it is proved that the land is a gomal land and it could not have been alienated at the hands of the respondent No.7 herein in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the revenue -9- WP No. 17941 of 2018 entries as were standing before the impugned orders were passed shall be restored.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY