Karnataka High Court
Sri B Ravi Kumar Reddy vs Smt Bhagyamma on 7 April, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
W.P.No.5891/2017(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B RAVI KUMAR REDDY
S/O. LATE GOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT 46/1,
C M MOHAN BUILDING,
YESHWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE 560022
2. SHRI. P JAGANNATH REDDY
S/O. MUNIRATHNAM REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO. 285,
11TH-A-CROSS,
17TH MAIN, JP NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560078 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H R ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT BHAGYAMMA
D/O. LATE. PAPACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH
(ADDL) TALUK 560064,
-2-
2. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O. LATE. ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT
KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL)
TALUK 560064,
3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONERR
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE 560009 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
SRI S.V.GIRIKUMAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.08.2016, PASSED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, IN RRT (2)(E) CR 177/2009-10
CONNECTED WITH REVENUE MISC.103/15-16 AND
REVENUE MISC.NO.104/15-16 AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is in challenge to the common order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division, Bengaluru in RRT.No.(2)(E) CR 177/2009-10 c/w Revenue -3- Misc.103/15-16 and Revenue Misc.NO.104/15-16 with reference to the land bearing Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, which is subsequently renumbered as Sy.No.100 and further divided in to Sy.No.100/1 and 100/2.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The origin of this litigation is an order passed by the Special Tahsildar of Bengaluru North (Additional)Taluk, Bengaluru, in proceedings bearing No.RRT (Jala) CR.893/2003-94, vide Annexure-T to these proceedings, where it was observed that in respect of land bearing Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village, certain documents are created without reference to any order of grant in the name of Anjinappa, S/o Puttaiah in No.LND:C1:SR:138 to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas and in favour of Smt.Bhagyamma, W/o Papachar to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas and included their names in pahani of said Sy.No.67, which order was challenged by Bhagyamma W/o Papachar -4- in RA.No.319/2003-04 and Ramakrishna S/o Anjinappa in RA.No.434/2004-05 on the file of Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North.
3. The said appeals were clubbed together and disposed of by order dated 3.6.2005 by the Assistant Commissioner, where the order of the Tahsildar of Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, with reference to Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli in No.RT(Jala) CR.892/2003-04, dated 20.10.2003 and MR.No.5/2003-04 dated 22.10.2003 were set aside and consequently, directed the concerned authority to look into all the documents and thereafter to register katha in accordance with Rules. In the said order, in the preamble portion it was observed that the order impugned was before notice to the parties.
4. It is stated that, even before the order dated 3.6.2005 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, a notice was issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, in No.RRT(2)CR.11/2003-04 on 29.3.2004 to Bhagyamma as well as Ramakrishna, where it was indicated -5- that proceedings will be initiated under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the documents which are standing in their name. It is stated that subsequent to issuance of said notice, nothing was done. In the meanwhile, as stated supra, the Assistant Commissioner passed order dated 3.6.2005 in Appeal Nos.319/2003-04 and 424/2004-05. It is stated that even this order was not given effect to for long time.
5. It is in this background a writ petition came to be filed before this Court by Bhagyamma, W/o Papachar and Ramakrishna S/o Anjinappa, in WP.No.10247/2007, wherein their prayer was for implementation of order dated 3.6.2005 of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North in RA.Nos.319/2003-04 and 424/2004-05. This writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 2.7.2007 in directing the authorities to comply with the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 3.6.2005. It is stated that even after the order in WP.No.10247/2007 except removing the name -6- of Government from RTC for long time nothing was done by the authorities till 23.3.2010, on which day a further notice was issued in proceedings No.RRT(1) NA.CR.177/2009-10 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, under Section 136(3) of the Act to Ramakrishna and Bhagyamma through GPA Holder Abbas Ali Bohra. It is stated that even this notice was not pursued. Thereafter, one more notice was issued on 27.9.2012 in proceedings No.RRT/1/NA/CR/177/2009-10 from the office of Special Deputy Commissioner, East/Anekal Taluk/Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluks Office, calling upon Ramakrishna and Bhagyamma to produce several documents.
6. Thereafter, vide proceedings bearing No.RRT(1)N(A) CR.177/2009-10 the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Bengaluru, passed an order on 18.6.2013 in directing the Tahsildar to register katha of land bearing Sy.No.67, measuring to an extent of 6 acres in the name of Ramakrishna S/o Anjinappa to an extent of 3 acres 20 -7- guntas and in the name of Bhagyamma W/o Papachar to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas, wherein it was also stated that the said officer personally went to the Taluk Office of Devanahalli to verify the correctness or otherwise of the documents on which the parties have relied upon; to ascertain whether there was genuine grant in favour of Anjinappa S/o Puttappa to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas and in favour of Bhagyamma W/o Papachar to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas; he has personally ascertained that said documents are available and accordingly, passed the order for katha being registered in the names of said two persons to the aforesaid extent.
7. It is stated that even after this order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 18.6.2013, the names of Ramakrishna and Bhagyamma were not included in RTC which necessitated in said persons approaching this Court by filing WP.Nos.37384-38/2014 (KLR/RR/SUR), which came to be disposed of by order dated 2.8.2014 in directing implementation of the order of Special Deputy Commissioner -8- dated 18.6.2013. It is stated inspite of said order of this Court, the names of Ramakrishna and Bhagya were not included in RTC resulting in a representation being given to the Tahsildar contending that if the order of this Court in WP.No.37384-85/2014 is not given effect to, contempt proceedings will be initiated. The aforesaid documents are at Annexures-R12 to R19 series.
8. It is thereafter, the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Yelahanka, in proceedings bearing No.RRT (Jala) 301/2014-15 passed an order on 3.9.2014, wherein he would refer to the order of this Court in WP.No.37384-385/2014. He would also state that old Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli is re-numbered as Sy.No.100, that the same is further divided into Sy.Nos.100/1 and 100/2, that in these two numbers the land granted in favour of Bhagyamma and Ramakrishna should be registered. Pursuant to this order dated 3.9.2014, the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Additional), Bengaluru, vide proceedings No.LND(NA) CR:203/2013-14 and LND (NA) CR:27/2013-14 -9- would state that in Kadiganahalli village, Sy.No.67 is renumbered as Sy.No.100 and subsequently, phoded into 100/1 and 100/2 in his report dated 21/10, which is at Annexure-R21.
9. It is stated that subsequently the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, vide letter dated 1.12.2014 in proceedings No.RRT(NA)CR.77/2014-15 would inform the Tahsildar of Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Yelahanka, to implement the order of this Court dated 2.8.2014 in WP.No.37384-37385/2014. It is in the background of this order, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Additional) Yelahanka Upanagara, Bengaluru, would pass an order to restore the names of Bhagyamma and Ramakrishna in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.100/1 and 100/2 of Kadiganahalli village, to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas and 3 acres 20 guntas, respectively, subjected the same to phodi and durasth by order dated 16.12.2014 and pursuant to this order, mutation is also effected vide MR.No.H14/2014-15 in proceedings bearing
- 10 -
No.RRT/J/301/2014-15, dated 6.1.2015. It is this order of Tahsildar which was subject matter of challenge in WP.Nos.9540-41/2015 by petitioners herein.
10. In said WP.Nos.9540-41/2015, on 28.4.2015 when it was taken up for consideration, it is observed that the petitioners therein have chosen two forums, one by filing the said writ petitions before this Court and simultaneously filing Appeal Nos.452/2014-15 and 453/2014-15 before the Assistant Commissioner in challenge to the order of Tahsildar dated 16.12.2014 in proceedings No.RRT(Jala) CR.301/2014-15, which order is at Annexure-R23 in the present proceedings. Accordingly, the order of status-quo which was granted earlier was vacated and the parties were directed to prosecute the Appeals Nos.452 and 453 of 2014- 15 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner.
11. Subsequent to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.4.2015 in reserving liberty to the petitioners in the said writ petitions, who are petitioners herein to pursue the Appeal Nos.452 and 453 of 2014-15,
- 11 -
the same was pursued, wherein a detailed order was passed on 8.6.2015 in proceedings No.RA(BNA) No.452/2014-15 which was filed by P.J.Reddy [P. Jagannath Reddy] S/o Munirathnam Reddy, 2nd petitioner herein in dismissing the said appeal. It was also observed in the said order that the appellant in Appeal No.319/2003-04 and the appellant in Appeal No.454/2004-05 have preferred writ petitions in WP.No.9540-41/2015 against the order of Special Deputy Commissioner in No.RRT(1)N(A) 177/2009-10, which is pending consideration, therefore, they are at liberty to approach the revenue authorities after the disposal of the said writ petitions. On the basis of this order dated 8.6.2015 in RA.(BNA) 452/2014-15 the appeal in RA.(BNA) 453/2014-15 was also dismissed on the same day. These two orders are at Annexure-R28. It is thereafter WP.Nos.9540-41/2015 were taken up for consideration on 17.3.2016, on which day all the orders passed by the then Special Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under Section 136(3) of the Act are nullified by this Court and this Court further observed that said orders should be reviewed
- 12 -
by competent officers, who have subsequently been posted as Deputy Commissioners and thereafter to dispose of the disputes between the parties afresh after hearing them.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after dismissal of the appeal filed by them in RA(BNA)No.452/2014-15 and RA(BNA)453/2014-15 by order dated 08.06.2015 after disposal of WP Nos.9540- 41/2015 by order dated 17.03.2016, they preferred two revision petitions which are in Revenue Misc.No.103/2015- 16 and Revenue Misc.No.104/15-16. Simultaneously, pursuant to the order of this Court in WP Nos. 9540- 41/2015, the Deputy Commissioner took up proceedings in RRT(2)(e) CR 177/09-10 for reconsideration and these three matters are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by order dated 31.08.2016 which is the subject matter of challenge by the petitioners in these writ petitions. Though in the cause title to the order at Annexure-A there is a reference to RRT(2)(3)CR 17910 and connected with Revision Misc.103 and 104/15-16, it is seen that the order is
- 13 -
confined to only RRT 177/09-10 whereas Revision Misc.Nos.103 and 104 are not at all considered. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners in R.Misc.Nos.103-104/15-16 filed applications for impleading in RRT 177/09-10. As could be seen from page Nos.5 and 6 of the order at Annexure-A, the said applications are taken and they are rejected. However, the proceedings in RRT- 177/09-10 is disposed of by order dated 31.08.2016 and as well as R.Misc.Nos.103-104/15-16 are also decided in this proceedings.
13. It is this order now sought to be challenged by the petitioners who are petitioners in R.Misc.Nos.103- 104/15-16 who are also the contesting respondents in RRT 177/2009-10 disposed of by respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner. Before taking up these writ petitions, what is to be seen is the rights of petitioners-1 and 2 and respondents-1 and 2 to the property in question.
- 14 -
14. Admittedly, the property in question in this proceedings is 6 acres of land in Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village, Jalahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, which is now said to be situated in Yelahanka Taluk. Admittedly, the claim of the petitioners-1 and 2 is traceable to proceedings initiated under Inam Abolition Act where the title to the property bearing Sy.No.67 which was then referred to as Sy.No.23/23 of Kadiganahalli village was considered in favour of one B.Hariram Singh, who is said to have purchased the same from its erstwhile owner and Baravardhar, who had jodi inam right under the Mysore (personal and Miscelleneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954. The records would indicate that the said B.Hariram Singh has purchased this property earlier in the year 1942-43 under the Jodi Inam right in the said property which according to him is to an extent of 8 acres.
15. It is seen that the said B.Hariram Singh has sold an extent of 8 acres of land which according to him was available in the said Sy.No.23/23 in favour of one
- 15 -
Venugopala under a sale deed dated 25.11.1959. The purchaser, who in turn sold the said extent in favour of one B.M.Shankariah and another person by name Narasimhachari under a registered sale deed dated 12.08.1964 and it is at that stage the land bearing Sy.No.23/23 of Kadiganahalli village is changed to land bearing Sy.No.67 vide Annexure-E which is Moola Tippanni of Sy.No.23/23 and the said change is said to have made on 3.5.1968 which is confirmed by Annexure-V (The relevant portion is at page 238; ink page-5 of the said document). Thereafter, it is seen that the first purchaser B.M.Shankaraiah along with the LRs. of another purchaser Narasimhachar (who had died by then) sold the aforesaid land in favour of S.M.Nagaraj and others vide sale deed 12.10.1980 and subsequently the said S.M.Nagaraj and others by sale deed dated 14.10.1981 have sold the same land in favour of one S.N.Gangadhar and S.N.Nagaraj (name of the vendor and subsequent purchaser are one and the same) and it is stated that subsequently portion of the said land was purchased by petitioners-1 and 2 herein.
- 16 -
16. It is relevant to state that by then Sy.No.67 was renumbered as Sy.No.100 of Kadaganahalli village which could be seen from Annexure-E Moola Tippani of Yelanhanka-Jalahalli, vide Page No.91 of Book No.2 with reference to Sy.No.100 and the said document would also indicate that Sy.No.100 is the new survey number to old Sy.No.67 and the said change in Survey number is considered as on 11.7.77 and the said Tippani would indicate mutation of the land to B.M. Shankaraiah and Narasimhachar who are said to be the purchasers and who have subsequently sold it to S.M.Nagaraj. It is seen that pursuant to the sale deed in favour of S.N.Gangadhar and S.M.Nagaraj (found at page 122) their names are shown in Record of Rights and also index of land which are at Annexure-J to these writ petitions and it is also stated that the said land was subsequently renumbered as Sy.No.100/1 and 100/2 (page 126) as seen from Karnataka Revision Akarband which is at Annexure-J series.
- 17 -
17. The aforesaid recital is with reference to the title which the petitioners are claiming to the land in question which is flown from the original owner to the purchaser under a sale deed in the year 1942-43 traceable to several sale deeds of 1959, 1964, 1980 and 1980, thereafter to the petitioners under a registered sale deed dated 15.10.2003 in the name of the first petitioner to an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.110/1 of Kadiganahalli village and under a sale deed dated 20.10.2003 in the name of second petitioner which is with reference to 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.100/2 of Kadiganahalli village. With this, the claim of the petitioners is 4 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.100/1 as 2 acres 30 guntas and Sy.No.100/3 vide Annexure-M and N to these writ petitions.
18. Contrary to aforesaid finding on facts referred to supra, the claim of respondents-1 and 2 is under a grant which is at Annexure-P. The said Annexure-P is with reference to proceedings in DIS/LND.SA 138/78-79 dated 29.12.1978 from the office of the Deputy Commissioner,
- 18 -
Bangalore District. This document is referred to as office note which is for grant of land in Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village, Jalahalli hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, in favour of one Sri Anjinappa and one another who are said to be unauthorized occupants. In the said document, first para would refer to the letter of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-division bearing No.LND(RVC) 214 77- 78 dated 12.10.1978 would propose for grant of land in Sy.No.67 of Kadaganahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, in favour of Anjinappa and another as per the G.O.No.RD 105(LGP)(not legible)77 based on the Report No.LND SR I 48/78 dated 04.02.1978 of the Tahsildar.
19. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court No.RD 105 LGP 770 referred to at Annexure-R4 filed by respondents-1 and 2 where the said number was wrote as RD 105 LGP 77 dated..... and in the same Annexure-R at reference No.3 there is a reference to LND SR.. 48-78 where the date is shown as 1.2.1978 as against 4.2.1978 seen in Annexure-P and this very document is available as appendix
- 19 -
to Annexure-R4 where the date of the said document is referable to the office of the Tahsildar, Doddaballapur Taluk in LND SR 148/78 which is dated 1.2.78.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner would meticulously take this Court through every word in this document by taking reference to each number. According to him, none of the numbers referred to in this document is genuine and they are imaginary numbers. According to him, vide Annexure-AY-document at page 505 to this writ petition is traceable to copy of the Dharkasth Register of Seegehally, Bangalore South Taluk, with reference to 3 acres of land belonging to Lakshminarayana and others. With reference to recital of the said document pursuant to the letter (official Memorandum) of Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-division, Bangalore, vide LUD.RUC/214/78-79 is concerned, he would refer to Annexure-BA which is at page 514 where the said reference is to a proceedings dated 27.9.78 from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division,
- 20 -
which is under Regularization of Un-authorized cultivation of land in Sy.No.223 of Karehally, Kundana, Hobli, Devanhalli Taluk. Now, coming to the Darkashth Extract for the year 77-78 and official Memorandum No. LND SR (I) 48/78-79 the same are with reference to Annexures-BD and BE, which are at page 528 and 530. These two documents of Register of Dharkasth are with reference to Nalapanahalli village, C.R.Patna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Sy.No.15 stood in the name of Venkatappa a person belonging to AK community. Now coming to 2nd page pf Annexure-P where the approval of note at para-6 is on 10/12/....(year not mentioned) as against the date of proposal is of the same year 29.12.1978. Coming to para-7 of the said document where there is reference to Official Memorandum in No.BDS/LND(1)138/78-79 dated 24.12.1978 is concerned, which is ordered on 10/12/.... (year not forthcoming).
21. Therefore, it is in this background, the said document is demonstrated as forged document. However, the learned counsel for respondents-1 and 2 is unable to
- 21 -
deny any of said allegations, with reference to creation, concoction of fake and false documents. It is based on this Annexure-P, respondents-1 and 2 are said to be given the Grant Certificate vide Annexures-R and S both dated 1.2.78 and where it is contended that an extent of 3 acres 30 guntas is granted in favour of Sri Anjinappa S/o Puttappa and 2 acres 20 guntas is said to be granted in favour of Smt.Bhagyamma D/o late Papachar in the same village and the order of grant is pursuant to order No.LND RVE 214/78- 79 dated 1.2.78. It is based on this, respondents-1 and 2 are claiming title to 6 acres of land in Sy.No.76 of Kadiganahalli village which according to them is renumbered as S.Y.No.101/1 measruing 3 acres 38 guntas and Sy.No.101/2 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas which according to them is in their possession and enjoyment as grantees of the said land.
22. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents were never in cultivation of the said land and the said land is purchased by the petitioner which according
- 22 -
to him is seen in W.P.1687-876/10 (KLR-) where the prayer of the petitioner in the said petition is seeking direction to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in the said proceedings in restraining him from passing the order of conversion of land bearing Sy.Nos.101/1 and 101/2 in favour of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the said petition who are petitioners-1 and 2 herein. In the said petition, there is also reference that there is possibility of said lands being converted on the basis of recommendation of respondent No.4 in the said proceedings namely the Special Tahsildar of Bangalore North Taluk dated 29.04.2010 which documents were relied upon by the said purchaser Annexures-J1 and J2, K1 and K2 etc.,
23. As could be seen in WP Nos.33807-808/10 (KLR- RES) where the prayer is to conduct survey No.23/23 and also in respect of Sy.No.67 situated at Kadiganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore, to identify the possession of Anjinappa S/o Puttappa and Bhagayamma W/o late Papachar [petitioners in the said writ petition] claiming themselves as grantees against respondents-8 and 9 viz.,
- 23 -
B.Ravikumar Reddy and P.Jagannatha Reddy who are petitioners herein, thereby indicating that as on that date they knew that the petitioners were having title to the said property. That the same was said to be identified in the said property where petitioners' counsel would refer the proceedings in RRT(D)CR 11/2013-14 and RRT(D)12/2013- 14 which is at Annexures-AL and AM which was filed by respondent No.1- Ramakrishna and respondent No.2- Bagyamma.
24. Their claim in the said proceedings is seeking to register 03 acres 20 guntas and 2 acres 20 guntas respectively in the RTC in their name. According to them Sy.67 is a sarkar gomal land and in the said proceedings there is an observation by the Special Tahsildar of Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk that Bhagyamma W/o Papachar and Anjinappa S/o Puttappa have not produced the original grant order, original Grant Certificate and any original document with reference to grant made in their favour and that the said Tahsildar would also observe that no documents are available in the office of the Special Tahsildar
- 24 -
with reference to grant of aforesaid extent of land in favour of respondents-1 and 2 herein who are petitioners before the Special Tahsildar and it is also observed by the Special Tahsildar that if the proceedings in RRT(D)25/2005-06 dated 07.04.2006 is seen the documents on which respondents-1 and 2 (petitioners respectively in the said proceedings) would depend upon the documents which are fraudulently created on the face of it and in the said proceedings their prayer is rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioners in both the proceedings have not produced original grant order, original grant certificate and grant with reference to any proceedings initiated for Regularisation of alleged Unauthorised cultivation. That they did not produce any of the documents which are relied upon by them, hence dismissed both the proceedings by two separate orders dated 08.01.2014 as could be seen from Annexures-L and M. In So far as the case of the Anjinappa is concerned, there is one more observation with reference to Annexure-L - grant of Saguvali Chit in his name is clandestinely inserted and stitched in the original
- 25 -
documents which are available in the said office thereby indicating that the document is a fraudulent document.
25. With this background, it is also seen that there were several litigations between the parties besides the revenue proceedings where each one of them are claiming to get their names registered in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.100/1 and 100/2 of Kadiganahalli village. In that behalf one of the suits which is filed by the respondent No.2 Ramakrishna is in O.S. No.535/2005 which is subsequently renumbered as Sy.No.1402/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bengaluru Rural District, is for the relief of declaration of his title to land bearing Sy.No.67/2 with reference to 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.67/2 of Kadiganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk (it is stated that there was no sub number to Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village) which was subsequently renumbered as Sy.No.100 and it is stated that this suit which was filed against petitioners No.1 and 2 as respondent Nos.4 and 3 was dismissed for non prosecution on 27.07.2010 vide
- 26 -
Annexure 'AC' (which is at page No.247 to this writ petition) and also another suit filed by Smt. Bhagyamma, the first respondent herein in O.S. No.535/2005, subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.1402/2006, which is also on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bengaluru Rural District is in respect of Sy.No.67/3 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of Kadiganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk (petitioner would again state that there was no Sy.No.67/3 to said Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village). This suit also came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 27.07.2010 and according to him the very fact that the schedule to these two suits referred to as Sy.Nos.67/2 and 67/3 which are non existing survey numbers, particularly in the light of Sy.No.67 which is already been renumbered as Sy.No.67/1 on 07.01.1997 would clearly indicate that the said suits are in respect of non existing survey numbers and based on non existing grants made in their favour.
26. At this juncture learned counsel for the respondents would also bring to the notice of this Court that
- 27 -
the suit which was filed by the petitioners' predecessors in title Sri Shankaraiah and legal heirs of Narasimhachar in O.S. No.328/1990 Annexure 'K' (page No.129 to this petition) against different persons seeking prayer of declaration with reference to their title to land bearing Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village (page No.129) of the said suit. The said suit is also dismissed. However, in the said suit the prayer would indicate that land was Sy.No.67 and it was subsequently renumbered as Sy.No.100 of Kadiganahalli village which document is at Annexure 'K'. When this is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would request this Court to look in to the issue framed in the said suit. The first of which is with reference to the ownership of suit property to the plaintiffs namely, Shankaraiah and the legal heirs of Narasimhachar who are purchasers of 8 acres of land in Sy.No.23/23, later renumbered as Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village under sale deed dated 01.08.1964, where the issue No.1 as referred to supra is answered partly in affirmative in their favour.
- 28 -
27. However, it is observed in the said proceedings that the total extent available is only 7 acres 2 guntas as against 8 acres claimed by them. Therefore, the decree is denied with reference to declaration of title to an extent of 8 acres in the said suit and in the said suit one of the observations made for dismissal of the suit is the boundary to the land in question as shown in the plaint does not tally with the boundaries claimed by the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that as on the date of filing of the suit in O.S.No.328/1990 and earlier to that the total extent of the land which was available in original Sy.No.23/23 was vast extent and out of that the total extent was carved out as Sy.No.67 was only to an extent of 9 acres 23 guntas, out of which the claim of the petitioners' predecessors in title who were plaintiffs in the said suit was to an extent of 8 acres and in the said judgment there is also an observation that in Sy.No.67 about 33 guntas land was considered in favour of one Shankar which is given separate No.95, thereby the petitioner would indicate that the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that they
- 29 -
are granted 6 acres in this land cannot be accepted inasmuch as though the claim of the petitioners' predecessors is restricted to 7 acres 2 guntas in the said land. Out of that 33 guntas is already given in favour of one Shankar, 6 acres is not available in Sy.No.67 for grant in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 as contended by them and he would further state that Sy.No.67 was never given sub numbers at any point of time, the entire Sy.No.67 is given new No.100 which is subsequently divided into 100/1 and 100/2 and these are the observations seen in the judgment in O.S. No.328/1990 filed by the petitioners' predecessors namely Shankaraiah and legal heirs of Narasimhachar.
28. In the course of arguments submitted by learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S Patil he would try to assert that in the year 1978 vide Annexures 'R' and 'S' the respondent No.1 Bhagyamma and respondent No.2 Ramakrishna's father secured grant vide grant certificate dated 2.5.1979 and the order of grant dated 29.12.1978. According to him if there was any change in survey number,
- 30 -
that was known only to Survey Department and not to other departments. Therefore, the grant of land bearing Sy.No.67 in favour of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 cannot be assailed.
29. At this juncture this Court would call upon the learned Additional Government Advocate who has secured original records from both Survey Department as well as the office of Tahsildar to place before this Court when the survey numbers changed from 23/23 to 67; 67 to 100 and from 100 to 100/1 and 100/2 of Kadiganahalli village. In that behalf he would produce that Sy.No.23/23 was assigned new No.67 in the year 1968-69 by referring to Karda Revision Settlement of 1968-69. Thereafter he would produce the Karda and Tippani book of said survey number which would indicate that Sy.No.67 was assailed Sy.No.100 on 11.07.1977 and Sy.No.100 was phoded as Sy.Nos.100/1 and 100/2 on 20.04.1985 and the original documents which are produced by him would include the record of right as per Hissa survey.
- 31 -
30. Now, when all these documents have been looked into, this Court would observe that in the survey sketch in the Tippani book dated 11.7.1977 the name of B Hari Ram Singh, S/o Bala Singh is shown to be in possession of the property as on 11.07.1977 and thereafter it is seen that the Karda (possession) is changed to B M Shankaraiah S/o Muni Venkatappa and M Narasimhachar S/o Subbannachar in joint possession which is the entry as could be seen on 11.07.1977. Subsequently, when in the very same Survey Book with reference to Hissa Tippani where the phoding of Sy.No.100 is divided into 100/1 and 100/2 is concerned, the Karda (possession) is shown in the name of S N Gangadhar S/o Narayanaswamy to 100/1 and S N Nagaraj S/o Muniswamappa as the person in possession of Sy.No.100/2 as could be seen from the survey sketch and tippani of 20.04.1985 and the same is also seen in Hissa Survey/record of rights in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.1 and 2 where the extent in the name of N Gangadhar is an extent of 3 acres 38 guntas and in favour of S N Nagaraj is to
- 32 -
an extent of 3 acres 4 guntas and total extent shown in Sy.No.100 including 1 and 2 is 7 acres 2 guntas.
31. The learned Additional Government Advocate who has produced all these original records through the Survey Department would also show the Pakka book of Survey Department with reference to Kadiganahalli village, Devanahalli taluk, Bengaluru, dated 11.10.1980 would indicate that the old Sy.No.67 is given new Sy.No.100 and the said land was initially belonging to B Harirama Singh, S/o Bala Singh. Thereafter to B M Shankaraiah S/o Munivenkatappa and M Narasimhachar S/o Subbannachar and in the said document the total extent available in the said survey number is shown as 7 acres 28 guntas. In the right hand column where the area with reference to gross (hien, kharab and saguvali jameen) which is referred to as the cultivable land is to an extent of 7 acres 2 guntas.
32. The Xerox copies of these documents are directed to be filed along with a memo by taking back the originals which are given to scrutiny of this Court.
- 33 -
33. The line of argument on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is that the fact that they were unauthorized persons in cultivation of land bearing Sy.No.67 is not disputed by the authorities, that their application for regularization was recommended by the Tahsildar by letter dated 1.2.1978 which was accepted by the office of Assistant Commissioner on 12.10.1978 and thereafter, the matter was sent to the office of Deputy Commissioner for grant of land. According to learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29.12.1978 vide Annexure-R5 passed the order of grant of 3 acres 20 guntas in favour of Anjinappa and 2 acres 20 guntas in favour of Bhagyamma d/o Papachar, based on which saguvali chit was given to them on 2.5.1979 vide Annexures-R and S to the writ petition. Thereafter, revenue entries are followed.
34. However, this line of argument is not only opposed by the counsel for the petitioner but also the learned Additional Government Advocate in bringing to the
- 34 -
notice of this Court several inconsistencies and anomalies in the documents with reference to the alleged unauthorized occupation, the prayer for regularization of the same which is forwarded by the Tahsildar by his letter dated 1.2.1978 to the Assistant Commissioner, in turn the Assistant Commissioner by letter dated 12.10.1978 sending it to Special Deputy Commissioner and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner passing an order dated 29.12.1978. According to learned AGA, reference to the numbers in each of the proceedings have nothing to do with the proceedings before the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, more particularly the order dated 29.12.1978, where there is total inconsistency with reference to the number of the file as well as the number of the file under which the matter is recommended for consideration and consequently, the order which is passed is much before the date on which it was recommended for an order being passed, thereby demonstrating that there is total inconsistency.
- 35 -
35. However, in the entire bargain there appears to be certain original references shown to be available in the revenue records which are summoned from the office of the Tahsildar. When they are looked into it is clearly seen that the document at Annexure-BD, which is Darkasth register with Serial Number and Year the proceedings No.48/1978- 79 is the number which is shown to the recommendation and this is with reference to land bearing Sy.No.15 of Nallappanahalli village, whereas this number is seen in Annexure-P, which is the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.12.1978 where the report is said to be under this number i.e., 48/1978-79 when this number is totally unconnected to Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli, on the contrary, it is with reference to Sy.No.15 of Nallappanahalli.
36. Again, when it comes to proceedings No.LND.RUC.214/1978-79 the same is with reference to land of Karehalli and when it comes to original number of Annexure-P in Dis.LND.138/1978-79 it is with reference to Annexure-AY, which is for land of Seegehalli. Further, at the
- 36 -
bottom of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.12.1978 there is reference to order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 24.12.1978 in approving 6 acres of land in question for grant. Therefore, what cannot be believed is approval is ahead of recommendation. The date of approval is 5 days ahead of the date of recommendation dated 29.12.1978.
37. Besides this, the other inconsistencies which are brought to the notice of this Court by the learned AGA is with reference to Darkasth Register. In the said register what is seen is that, page Nos.40 and 41 appears to be a different kind of paper inserted into said place. This document is Register of Form No.1 which is referred to as Register of Applications for Assignment, where at page No.40 on the left hand side the handwriting and the right hand side handwriting are different, it is also seen that the ink used also different. This difference is seen only in page Nos.40 and 41 and from page No.42 onwards the handwriting continued to be normal, where there is an
- 37 -
attempt to paste page Nos.40 and 41 to this book by using adhesive which is not the case with reference to other pages which are joined together and stitched. It is only these two pages which are inserted would show orders which would support the grant in favour of respondents 1 and 2. The order in said insertion is different from several orders commencing from 20th June 1978 to 15.1.1979 which are recorded in seriatim-wise and various other references are also seen in these pages. The contents in the pages inserted do not gel with other contents of the book. When page No.40 is seen with reference to notings in other pages, it is totally different which is inserted here out of context which clearly discloses that there is deliberate attempt on the part of the person who is inserting this document. It is based on this document, several other entries like IHC and other entries have come into existence, which are relied upon by the respondents 1 and 2.
38. Yet another discrepancy which the learned AGA would bring to the notice of this Court is with reference to
- 38 -
insertion of MR entries to Mutation Register where up to page No.15 the writing appears to be clear, but when it comes to page No.16 of the said book, which is produced before this Court, it is clearly seen that entry 15/93-94 and 16/93-94 which are with reference to grant in favour of Anjinappa and Bagyamma is recorded where on the right side the signature of the Village Accountant is seen which starts with initials B.R. If this signature is compared with other pages in the same book, the signature of the Village Accountant is tried to be copied here and this signature is poor imitation of the signature of the Village Accountant of Bettahalasuru Panchayath, Bengaluru North Taluk. Similar is the situation with the signature of Revenue Inspector. When the signature of the Revenue Inspector in the said book is seen with other entries, the same signature is sought to be copied here and again there is failure on the part of the person in trying to imitate the same thereby clearly indicating that there is an attempt to insert the mutation entry in MR.Nos.15/1993-94 and 16/1993-94 where the signatures of Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector is
- 39 -
different to the naked eye with reference to the signatures seen in other places of the same book.
39. Another discrepancy which is brought to the notice of this Court is Assistant Commissioner's signature in letter dated 12.10.1978 in proceedings bearing No.LND.RUC.214/1978-79, which is at Annexure-R4. When Annexure-R4 is seen, the signature of Assistant Commissioner on that is different from another letter with same number, namely No.LND.RUC.214/1978-79, dated 27.9.1978, which is with reference to land bearing Sy.No.223 of Karehalli village. This would clearly indicate that there is a fraudulent act for the reason that with reference to different survey numbers, same case number will not be entertained. If proceedings in No.LND.RUC.214/1978-79 of the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur, is assigned to land bearing Sy.No.223 of Karehalli on an earlier date, namely 27.9.1978, the same file/case number will not be assigned to another land bearing Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, which
- 40 -
is dated 12.10.1978. When the signature in Annexure-R4 is seen with reference to the signature of very same Officer in letter dated 27.9.1978 which is produced before this Court for Sy.No.223 of Karehalli, it is totally different, thereby it is clearly seen that the signature of Assistant Commissioner with reference to Karehalli number is forged for the proceedings of the land in question indicating as if there was a proceedings before the very same Officer in the very same number but with reference to land bearing Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk.
40. The learned AGA would also bring to the notice of this Court the Fair Copying Register where Form Nos.7 are maintained in the said office and the relevant entries are at 444 and 445 which are with reference to respondents 1 and 2, where the applicants would try to demonstrate that they have paid the challan amount as against the grant made in their favour on 24.12.1978 vide proceedings No.48/1978-79. If the said register is looked into, the said pages are attached to the book and when said pages are
- 41 -
looked into with reference to other pages which are seen in the said book, it appears to be different to the naked eye.
41. With this, the learned AGA tries to assert that there is an attempt to demonstrate as if there is grant in favour of respondents 1 and 2 when there is no order which would confirm such a grant in their name. He has this day produced Xerox copies of the original records produced at the time of hearing. The said documents are filed along with a memo. The same are taken on record.
42. In this background what is clearly seen is that there was no order of grant passed by the competent authority in favour of respondents 1 and 2 with reference to land bearing Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in favour of Anjinappa, the father of 2nd respondent and 2 acres 20 guntas in favour of Smt.Bhagyamma. What is further seen is whether that title which is claimed by the petitioner is based on sale deed executed by Jodidar of Kadiganahalli Jodi village in the year 1942-43 and subsequent re-grant of land bearing
- 42 -
Sy.No.23/23 of Kadiganahalli village as it stood in the year 1942-43 vide Annexure-B is acceptable and consequently the sale transaction from the original purchaser Hariharram Singh s/o Balaram Singh passing through Venugopala Naidu thereafter, B.M.Sanjay and another in their joint name; subsequently by said 1st purchaser and 2nd purchaser to S.M.Nagaraj and others; from Nagaraj to S.M.Gangadar and another S.M.Nagaraj; thereafter in favour of petitioner No.1 to an extent of 2 acre 20 guntas and petitioner No.2 to an extent of 2 acres, together measuring to an extent of 4 acres 30 guntas, could be traceable to the revenue documents as well document of title is required to be considered in this proceedings.
43. On giving careful consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent - State it would clearly indicate that all is not well in the revenue department. That there is deliberate attempt on the part of various persons in
- 43 -
getting fraudulent documents created with the help of unscrupulous revenue officials as clearly seen from the bundle of original documents secured from the office of the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner as well as survey department, which clearly discloses how the unscrupulous people meticulously created documents to demonstrate title to the property to which they have no semblance of right.
44. The case on hand is classic example of that. The first respondent - Bhagyamma and the father of second respondent - Ramakrishnappa namely late Anjinappa have got documents created to demonstrate as if they are grantees of land bearing Sy.No.67 of Kadiganahalli village to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in favour of Anjinappa and 2 acres 20 guntas in favour of Bhagyamma. Though such tall claim is made, in none of the earlier proceedings and also in this proceedings they could able to produce the original grant certificate or the original grant order in their favour. Per contra, all the copies which were relied upon by them when
- 44 -
compared to the original records available with various offices of the revenue department which are secured through the officer by the learned Government Advocate/Advocate General would clearly demonstrate that the original records in the said offices are tampered, which could not have happened without the assistance of some of the greedy and unscrupulous officials. Be that as it may.
45. In the ultimate analysis what could be understood is that, the original owners of the property who have acquired title to the land in question are denied of the same and they are made to run from pillar to post. It is also seen that in the several litigations which were raised by the petitioners and their predecessors in title and respondents 1 and 2, the revenue officials have not even bothered to look into the original records available with them. For the reasons best known to them on several occasions they have believed the version of respondents and tried to accept their title. In some occasion when a clear categorical finding was given by some of the officers as discussed supra in
- 45 -
indicating that respondents 1 and 2 have miserably failed to demonstrate the grant in their favour, the said orders are mercilessly struck down by their higher authorities for the reasons best known to them. When their action is seen with reference to the original records which is made available to them, this Court will have to feel sorry for the State in having such kind of officials working for it who are prepared to sell away the interest of the State as well as the right of genuine owners of the property for extraneous consideration.
46. In the instant case also it is that extraneous consideration or the reasons which are unexplainable have worked in assisting the first respondent and father of second respondent in creating forged and fraudulent documents in demonstrating as if they are grantees of certain extent of land in Sy.No.67 by indicating as if the said Sy.No. was at an undisputed point of time was phoded to Sy.No.67/1 and 67/2 and that they have secured necessary orders for registering the same in their name. When the survey records are looked into as referred to supra, it clearly
- 46 -
indicate that when Sy.No.23/23 was changed to Sy.No.67 and thereafter to Sy.No.100. The entries in said survey records does not at all support the claim of respondents 1 and 2, that Sy.No.67 was phoded into Sy.Nos.67/1 and 67/2. In any event, when all the material available on record are thoroughly scrutinized it is seen that there is an attempt to create fake documents and insert the same in the original records to demonstrate as if there was grant of land in favour of 1st respondent and father of second respondent and by virtue of that they are having right and title to the land presently bearing Sy.Nos.100/1 and 100/2, which is proved to be false and incorrect in the light of aforesaid discussion, particularly on going through the original documents pertaining to said survey number.
47. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is clearly seen that the order dated 31.8.2016 passed in RRT.2(E) CR. 177/09-10 c/w Rev.Misc.103/15-16 and Rev.Misc.104/15- 16 does not survive inasmuch as the said order is passed without even looking into the entire original records
- 47 -
pertaining to aforesaid survey number and also the manner in which the said land has passed from the hands of original owners who were Barawardars of the said land which was Inam land in the hands of Barwardars which has changed hands under various sale deeds which are recognized by the competent authority in registering the purchasers as absolute owners from whom the petitioners herein have secured title is not at all seen by the third respondent and he has also not properly appreciated the original records while passing the impugned order which is under challenge in this proceedings.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. This writ petition is allowed.
ii. The order impugned dated 31.8.2016 passed in RRT.2(E) CR. 177/09-10 c/w Rev.Misc.103/15- 16 and Rev.Misc.104/15-16 is hereby quashed.
iii. While doing so, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the light of aforesaid discussion, further enquiry is not required in this matter.
- 48 -
The finding given in this writ petition with reference to the claim of respondents 1 and 2 that they are not grantees of the land in question is proved beyond reasonable doubt and their claim to land in question is on the basis of fake, forged and concocted documents. Hence, it is hereby declared that they have no manner of right, title or interest to any extent of land either in erstwhile Sy.No.67 or in new Sy.No.100/1 and 100/2 of Kadiganahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru.
iv. This Court would also order that the officers of the revenue department shall forthwith register katha of Sy.No.100/1 and 100/2 to an extent of 4 acres 30 guntas i.e., 2 acres 30 guntas in the name of first petitioner and 2 acres in the name of second petitioner in the aforesaid land and shall issue necessary documents with reference to revenue entries in their name within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
- 49 -
v. While doing so, it is hereby declared that the claim of respondents 1 and 2 with reference to land bearing Sy.No.100/1 and 100/2 measuring to an extent of 4 acres 30 guntas, is on the basis of fraudulent documents and therefore, they are not entitled to any such relief.
vi. That the respondents 1 and 2 to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The same is imposed for the reason that on the basis of fake and fraudulent documents they have approached this Court on several occasions in wasting valuable time of this Court. The respondents 1 and 2 to deposit the cost within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/TL/YKL