Karnataka High Court
H.N.Sreeramappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 1 October, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NOS.56547-56548 OF 2013(KLR-
RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
H.N.SREERAMAPPA
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT HEBBATTA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 135
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.N. REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION
KOLAR - 563 135
3 . THE TAHASILDHAR
SRINIVASPUR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 135
4 . SMT.URUVAL MUNEMMA
D/O URAVAL MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
2
R/AT HEBBATTA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 135
....RESPONDENTS
(SRI.Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 18.06.2009
PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 23.10.2013 PASSED BY THE R-1 AT
ANNEXURE-L.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner in RRTCR.140/2000-01 as per Annexure-K and the order dated 23.10.2013 passed in RA.No.31/2009-10 by the first respondent- Deputy Commissioner, as per Annexure-L.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under: 3
The case of the petitioner is that the petition land is a gomal land and his father was in unauthorised occupation of the petition land to an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas and accordingly, his name found place in column 12(2) of R.T.C. Petitioner had also specifically contended that the name of father of respondent No.4 also finds place in column No.9. However, it is the specific case of the petitioner that such entry is without basis and father of fourth respondent had no semblance of right and title over the petition land. It is the further case of the petitioner that his father submitted an application seeking regularisation of his unauthorised occupation. The Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation after verifying the materials has regularized unauthorised occupation and consequently, saguvali chit was also issued. The recommendation of the aforesaid Committee as well as Saguvali Chit issued by the competent authority are produced as per Annexures-B and C to the petition. 4 Subsequently, mutation is also effected and petitioner's father name is duly entered in the revenue records in respect of 1 acre 16 guntas in Survey No.53 of Hebbatta Village, KasabaHobli, Srinivaspur Taluk, Kolar District.
It appears fourth respondent being aggrieved by the order passed by the aforesaid Committee and consequent issuance of Saguvali chit, preferred an appeal before second respondent-Assistant Commissioner, which came to be dismissed, against which, second appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter for fresh enquiry to the second respondent. On remand, second respondent- Assistant Commissioner after fresh enquiry came to the conclusion that the land in question is a private land and hence, the question of regularisation of unauthorised occupation would not arise in the present case on hand and has accordingly, allowed the appeal cancelling the recommendation made by the Committee 5 for regularisation of unauthorised occupation in favour of the petitioner's father as per Annexure-"B" and further directed the third respondent-Tahsildar to hold an enquiry and find out the mode of acquisition of right, if any, by the fourth respondent and also to find out as to how the name of the father of the fourth respondent was mutated in the ownership column. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner, who, in turn has dismissed the appeal concurring with the reasonings and findings arrived at by the second respondent- Assistant Commissioner. Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the first and second respondents is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner was not justified in cancelling the recommendation of the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised 6 occupation without ascertaining as to whether the petition land is the Government land or a private land. The operative portion of the order would clinch the issue and as such the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is liable to be quashed on that sole ground. By taking this Court to the operative portion of the order passed by the second respondent, he submits that the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner has first cancelled the recommendation of regularisation committee in favour of the father of the present petitioner and thereafter, he has issued direction to the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry and find out as to how the name of the father of the fourth respondent was mutated in the ownership column. Further, counsel for the petitioner has requested this Court to take judicial note of one more material aspect that the fourth respondent has not contended that it is her ancestral property. Infact, it is her specific case that the petition land was granted to her father 30 years back. This 7 material aspect has not been appreciated in the proper perspective and as such the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, the learned Government advocate though supports the orders passed by the authorities, however, he would fairly submit that the Assistant Commissioner having directed the third respondent- Tahsildar to hold an enquiry and find out as to the nature of the land ought to have kept the enquiry proceedings in abeyance and should have proceeded to pass orders only after securing report from the Tahsildar. In this background, he would submit that this is a fit case to remand the matter to the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner to hold an enquiry only after securing report from the Tahsildar.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the material on record.
8
6. The operative portion of the order passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner would clearly clinch the issue. On reading the operative portion, it is forthcoming that the second respondent has proceeded to cancel the recommendation of the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation before securing the report from the Tahsildar. There is absolutely no enquiry and no efforts are made by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner to ascertain whether the petition land is a private land or it is a gomal land. The second respondent-Assistant Commissioner has not examined the specific claim of the fourth respondent that her father was granted the petition land about 30 years back. If this statement is taken into consideration, it is nobody's case that the petition land is a private land and was owned by the father of the fourth respondent. Without examining this material aspect, which would go to the root of the case, the second respondent-Assistant 9 Commissioner has hurriedly proceeded to cancel the recommendation made by the Regularisation Committee and thereafter, has issued a direction to the Tahsildar to find out whether the petition land is a private land or a gomal land. This finding and conclusion arrived at by the second respondent-Assistant commissioner suffers from serious material irregularity and the same is palpably erroneous in the absence of material indicating that petition land is a private land. Further it is also forthcoming that the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner has mechanically concurred with the reasons assigned by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner.
7. For the reasons stated supra, the impugned order passed by the second and first respondents are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
10
ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner in RRTCR.140/2000-01 as per Annexure-K and the order dated 23.10.2013 passed in RA.No.31/2009-10 by the first respondent- Deputy Commissioner, as per Annexure-L are quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner, who on receipt of a copy of this order shall issue fresh notice to both the parties and after securing report from the competent authority shall first decide the controversy in regard to the nature of the land and thereafter proceed to examine the rights of the petitioner and the fourth respondent in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-