Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A.NO.17971/2011 (KLR-RES)
C/W
W.A.NO.17972/2011 (KLR-RR-SUR)
IN W.A.NO.17971/2011:
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUIDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY.
2. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE.
3. KARNATAKA PUBLIC LAND
CORPORATION, DC OFFICE COMPLEX
NEAR CITY CIVIL CITY COMPLEX
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 9. ...APPELLANTS
(BY DR. RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
DC OFFICE COMPLEX, NEAR CITY
CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, K.R. ROAD
BANGALORE - 9.
2
2. SRI KUNNAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
(A) SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE KUNNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
(B) SMT. VISHALAKSHMI
D/O LATE KUNNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
(C) SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI
D/O LATE KUNNAPPA
W/O SRI GANESH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
(D) SMT. SHASHIKALA
D/O LATE KUNNAPPA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
(E) SMT. SAVITHRI
D/O LATE KUNNAPPA
W/O SRI NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
(F) SRI. RANGASWAMY
S/O LATE KUNNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT: OLAGERE PALYA
KEMPASAGARA POST
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
3. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE AND DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY
SERVICES, NO.1, ANNASWAMY
MUDALIAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 042.
3
5. KALYANANAGARA RESIDENTS
WELFARE ASSOCIATION
BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
SRI B. SHAMBU KUMAR
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, WARD OFFICE
IST BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 043.
6. SMT. K. VIMALAMMA
W/O JAYARAMAIAH
MAJOR,R/A NO.15, IST MAIN ROAD
KALIDASA MARGA, GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 009.
7. SRI N. JAYARAMAIAH
S/O NARAYANAPPA
MAJOR,R/A NO.15, IST MAIN
ROAD, KALIDASA MARGA
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 009.
8. SRI H.S. SESHADRI
S/O LATE H SUBBAIAH
MAJOR,NO.703, 7TH B MAIN
IST C CROSS, IST BLOCK
HRBR EXTENSION
BANGALORE - 560 043.
9. SMT. SALLY JOSEPH
D/O LATE C K JOSEPH
MAJOR, NO.708, 7TH B MAIN
2ND C MAIN, HRBR EXTENSION
IST BLOCK, BANASWADI
KALYANNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 043.
10. WG. COMMDR A THOMAS BABU
S/O LATE J ABRAHIMMAJOR
NO.7106, 7TH B MAIN
HRBR EXTENSION
IST BLOCK, BANASWADI
KALYANNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 043.
11. SRI K. UMAPATHY
S/O KUNNIAPPAN
AGED MAJOR,R/A NO.359
4
WHEELER ROAD EXTENSION
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST
BANGALORE - 560 084.
12. SRI JOHN STEPHEN HENRY
S/O J.S. RAJ AND GRACE CAROL HENRY
MAJOR,NO.108, 7TH B MAIN, HRBR
EXTENSION,IST BLOCK,
BANASWADI, KALYANANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 043.
13. SRI BORALINGAIAH
S/O KEMPAIAH
MAJOR, NO.104, 7TH B MAIN
HRBR EXTENSION,IST BLOCK
BANASWADI, KALYANANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 043. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.M. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R-6 & R-7;
SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. VIVEKANANDA, ADV., FOR
R-5, R-8 TO R-11 & R-13;
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FORR-4;
SMT. V. VIJAYALAKSHMI, ADV., FOR R-2(A-F);
R-1 - SERVED; V/O DATED 11.03.2013
NOTICE TO R-12 IS D/W;
SRI C.V. KIRAN, ADV., FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.20213/2010(KLR-
RES) DATED 05/07/2011.
IN W.A.NO.17972/2011:
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUIDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY.
2. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 016.
5
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA PUBLIC LAND
CORPORATION, DC COURT COMPLEX
NEAR CITY CIVIL CITY COURT COMPLEX
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 9. ...APPELLANTS
(BY DR. RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
K.R. ROAD, BANGALORE - 9.
2. SRI K. JAYAPRAKASH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
2(A) SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O K. JAYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
2(B) SRI SATHISH J
S/O K. JAYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
2(C) SRI RAJESH J
S/O K. JAYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.66/B
3RD CROSS, VENKATESHWARA
COLONY, NEW THIPPASANDRA
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 075.
3. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE AND DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY
SERVICES, NO.1, ANNASWAMY
MUDALIAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 042.
6
5. KALYANANAGARA RESIDENTS
WELFARE ASSOCIATION
BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
SRI B. SHAMBU KUMAR
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, WARD OFFICE
IST BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 043.
6. SMT. K. VIMALAMMA
W/O JAYARAMAIAH
MAJOR,R/A NO.15, IST MAIN ROAD
KALIDASA MARGA, GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 009.
7. SRI N. JAYARAMAIAH
S/O NARAYANAPPA
MAJOR,R/A NO.15, IST MAIN
ROAD, KALIDASA MARGA
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 009.
8. SRI H.S. SESHADRI
S/O LATE H SUBBAIAH
MAJOR,NO.703, 7TH B MAIN
IST C CROSS, IST BLOCK
HRBR EXTENSION
BANGALORE - 560 043.
9. SMT. SALLY JOSEPH
D/O LATE C K JOSEPH
MAJOR, NO.708, 7TH B MAIN
2ND C MAIN, HRBR EXTENSION
IST BLOCK, BANASWADI
KALYANNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 043.
10. WG. COMMDR A THOMAS BABU
S/O LATE J ABRAHIMMAJOR
NO.7106, 7TH B MAIN
HRBR EXTENSION
IST BLOCK, BANASWADI
KALYANNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 043.
11. SRI K. UMAPATHY
S/O KUNNIAPPAN
AGED MAJOR,R/A NO.359
7
WHEELER ROAD EXTENSION
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST
BANGALORE - 560 084.
12. SRI JOHN STEPHEN HENRY
S/O J.S. RAJ AND GRACE CAROL HENRY
MAJOR,NO.108, 7TH B MAIN, HRBR
EXTENSION,IST BLOCK,
BANASWADI, KALYANANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 043.
13. SRI BORALINGAIAH
S/O KEMPAIAH
MAJOR, NO.104, 7TH B MAIN
HRBR EXTENSION,IST BLOCK
BANASWADI, KALYANANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 043. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.V. KIRAN, ADV., FOR R-3
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR R-4;
SRI JAYA KUMAR S PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI KUBERAPPA N, ADV., FOR R-2(A-C)
SRI K.M. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R-6 & R-7;
SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. VIVEKANANDA, ADV., FOR R-8;
R-1, R-10, R-11 ARE SERVED
V/O DATED 11.03.2013 IN W.A.17971/2011
NOTICE TO R-5, R-9, R-12, R-13 IS D/W)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.20263/2010(KLR-
RR/SUR) DATED 05/07/2011.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESEVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH
SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two intra court appeals are filed assailing the common order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the learned 8 Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20213/2010 and W.P.No.20263/2010.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals are, one Sri Kunnappa and Katappa, residents of K.G.Banasawadi village had filed applications before the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams) under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act of 1954') seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing Sy. No.211 measuring 9 acres and 8 acres, respectively (hereinafter referred to as 'the lands in question), contending that they were the tenants in respect of the lands in question under the Jodidhar of K.G.Banasawadi village. The land bearing Sy. No.211 totally measured 42 acres 38 guntas. Considering the applications filed by the aforesaid Kunnappa and Katappa, the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams) had sought for the report from the Special Tahsildar and 9 Gazetted Assistant and on receipt of such a report, held an enquiry in accordance with law and by order dated 11.04.1966 had registered occupancy rights as claimed by Kunnappa and Katappa in their favour and subsequent to the registration of occupancy rights of the lands in question in favour of Kunnappa and Katappa, the revenue entries in respect of the said lands were made in their name, and accordingly, the Tahsildar had also issued an endorsement in the year 1966 itself and eversince then, the name of Kunnappa and Katappa had continued in the revenue records of the lands which were granted to them. Similarly, occupancy rights were registered in respect of the remaining extent of land in Sy. No.211 in favour of other persons.
4. In the year 1989, Kunnappa had made an application to conduct survey and demarcation of his portion of the land and the Taluk Surveyor had conducted survey and demarcated the portions belonging to Kunnappa, Katappa and other persons who were granted occupancy rights in Sy. No.211 and also prepared a survey sketch.
10
5. When the matter stood thus, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act of 1964') allegedly on the basis of a report dated 18.05.1995 submitted by the Tahsildar, wherein he had expressed his doubts with regard to the genuineness of the orders made in favour of the persons who were granted occupancy rights of the land in Sy. No.211 and without holding a proper enquiry, abruptly passed an order dated 17.07.1995 canceling the entries made in favour of Kunnappa and Katappa. Katappa died on 23.10.1991. The order dated 17.07.1995 passed by respondent no.1-Special Deputy Commissioner was challenged by Kunnappa and K.Jayaprakash S/o late Katappa before this Court in W.P.No.22309/1997 and W.P.No.22310/1997, respectively, which was allowed and remanded by this Court by order dated 04.03.1999.
6. After remand, the Special Deputy Commissioner held a fresh enquiry, and pending orders, had obtained a Forensic Science Laboratory Report (for short, 'FSL 11 Report') in respect of the order dated 11.04.1966 registering occupancy rights of the lands in dispute to Kunnappa and Katappa, and on the basis of the said report, passed an order dated 25.11.2000 directing to delete the name of Kunnappa and Katappa from the revenue records of the lands in question and also directed the Tahsildar to take possession of the said lands. The said order dated 25.11.2000 was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.34060/2002 contending that the FSL Report was obtained by the Special Deputy Commissioner behind the back of the parties and this Court allowed the said writ petition on 04.09.2003 and remanded the matter to respondent no.1 to dispose of the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to have their say with regard to the FSL Report.
7. After remand, Kunnappa and the legal representative of Katappa had filed objections to the FSL Report and in the meanwhile, respondent nos.4 to 14 had filed applications to implead themselves contending that they were allotted sites in the lands in question by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'BDA') in 12 the year 1989 and they are in occupation and enjoyment of the respective sites allotted to them by constructing residential buildings in the same. The said applications were allowed by respondent no.1 - Special Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the Special Deputy Commissioner vide the order dated 10.06.2010 once again directed to delete the name of the aforesaid Kunnappa and Katappa from the revenue records of the lands in question on the ground that the order dated 11.04.1966, on the basis of which the revenue entries were made in favour of Kunnappa and Katappa were fraudulent documents in view of the FSL Report. The said order dated 10.06.2010 was assailed by Kunnappa and the legal representative of Katappa before this Court in W.P.No.20213/2010 and W.P.No.20263/2010, respectively.
8. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned has allowed the said writ petition reserving liberty to the State Government to take such other necessary action except the action under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964. Being aggrieved by the said 13 order dated 05.07.2011 passed in the writ petitions, the State and its authorities have filed these two intra court appeals.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the land bearing Sy. No.211 is a tank bed, and therefore, the said land could not have been granted under the provisions of the Act of 1954, and therefore, the said order is non-est in the eye of law. He also submits that the admitted signature of the then Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams) who had registered occupancy rights of the lands in question in favour of Kunnappa and Katappa were compared with the signatures found in the order dated 11.04.1966 under which occupancy rights were registered in favour of Kunnappa and Katappa by the FSL, which has opined that the signature found in the order dated 11.04.1966 were forged, and therefore, the entries in the revenue records made in the name of Kunnappa and Katappa on the basis of such a forged and fraudulent document has been rightly set aside by respondent no.1 - Special Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 136(3) of the Act of 14 1964. He also submits that since the entries have been made on the basis of the fraudulent documents, there cannot be any time limit for exercising the powers under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964 and action has been taken immediately after the Tahsildar has raised his doubt with regard to the genuineness of the order dated 11.04.1966. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgments in the case of S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRs. VS JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRs. & OTHERS - AIR 1994 SC 853, HINCH LAL TIWARI VS KAMALA DEVI & OTHERS - AIR 2001 SC 3215, K.N.MANJUNATH VS R.P.LAXMAN & OTHERS - ILR 2001 KAR 5587, and in W.A.No.1766/2008 disposed of on 27.11.2008 by this Court.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the land bearing Sy. No.211 was never a tank bed and it was an inam land even according to the revenue records. He submits that considering the application filed by Kunnappa and Katappa, the competent authority has registered occupancy rights of the lands in their favour and registered them as the permanent tenants under the 15 provisions of the Act of 1954 and the Inamdhar had no objection for the same. He submits that the said order of granting occupancy rights has not been questioned by anybody till date and the same has attained finality, and therefore, the entries made on the basis of such an order cannot be annulled or interfered by respondent no.1 - Special Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964. He submits that in a proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964, the validity of the order passed under the Act of 1954 cannot be examined. He also submits that the documents which were forwarded to the FSL are the photocopies and the original documents were not forwarded to the FSL, and therefore, the report which is based on comparison of the signatures found in the photocopies of the documents is of no significance and reliance cannot be placed on such a report for arriving at a conclusion that the order which is passed about 35 years prior to obtaining such a report is a forged or fraudulent document. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT & ANOTHER - 16 (2015)3 SCC 695, NINGANNA & OTHERS VS NARAYANA GOWDA & OTHERS - AIR 1983 KAR 116, and STUMPP SCHEULE & SOMAPPA (P) LTD. VS CHANDRAPPA - ILR 1985 KAR 3872.
11. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.8 & 9 who are the alleged allottees by the Bangalore Development Authority submits that the jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964 is vast and if any revenue entry is made in the revenue records in respect of a Government land based on fraudulent document, the Special Deputy Commissioner has got powers to annul such entries. He submits that the allottees are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective sites which have been allotted to them by the BDA. He refers to Section 67 of the Act of 1964 and submits that all tank beds vests with the Government, and therefore, the order dated 11.04.1966 is passed without jurisdiction, and therefore, the same is non-est in the eye of law.
12. Sri K.M.Prakash, learned Counsel who has appeared on behalf of the other allottees has also argued on the same lines and submits that the possession of the 17 allottees cannot be disturbed at this point of time, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside.
13. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by both the sides and also perused the material available on record.
14. The undisputed facts of the case are, Kunnappa and Katappa had filed applications under the provisions of the Act of 1954 for granting occupancy rights of 9 acres and 8 acres of land, respectively, in Sy. No.211 and considering the said applications, the competent authority after obtaining necessary report from the revenue officials, had registered the aforesaid Kunnappa and Katappa as permanent tenants of the lands claimed by them in exercise of his powers under Sections 5 & 10 of the Act of 1954, and a reading of the said order dated 11.04.1966 discloses that the Inamdhar of the said land had given consent for the same. The revenue officials also had not objected for registering occupancy rights in favour of the claimants nor did they report that the lands claimed were tank beds. The said order dated 18 11.04.1966 has attained finality and based on the said order, the entries in the revenue records of the lands in question were made in the name of Kunnappa and Katappa immediately thereafter, which continued till they were annulled for the first time in the year 1995.
15. Respondent no.1 - Special Deputy Commissioner for the first time in the year 1995, has passed the order dated 17.07.1995 directing to delete the name of the aforesaid Kunnappa and Katappa from the revenue records of the lands in question and also had directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to take over possession of the said lands. The said order dated 17.07.1995 was allegedly passed consequent to the report received by the Special Deputy Commissioner from the Tahsildar on 18.05.1995, wherein he had expressed his doubt with regard to the genuineness of the order dated 11.04.1966. The said order dated 17.07.1995 was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.22309/1997 and W.P.No.22310/1997 and the matter was remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner to hold fresh enquiry. After remand, a 19 fresh enquiry was held by the Special Deputy Commissioner, and thereafter, without notice to the contesting private parties, a report was obtained from the FSL on the basis of the signature found in the photocopy of the order which was available on file and based on such a report, the Special Deputy Commissioner had passed the order dated 25.11.2000 once again directing deletion of the names of Kunnappa and Katappa from the revenue records of the lands in question and the Tahsildar was directed to take possession of the same. This Court had quashed the said order dated 25.11.2000 in W.P.No.34060/2002 on the ground that the said order was passed on the basis of the FSL Report which was obtained behind the back of the contesting parties, and thereafter had remanded for fresh consideration once again.
16. After remand, the contesting private parties had filed their objections to the FSL Report contending that the same was obtained without notice to them and the said report which is based on the signatures found in the photocopies of the documents cannot be relied upon 20 for any purpose as the same had no significance. The Special Deputy Commissioner, however, has failed to properly appreciate the said objections raised by the contesting private parties to the FSL Report which was obtained on the basis of the signatures found in the photocopies of the documents and he has once again placed reliance on the said report and for the third consecutive time, he has directed to delete the name of the aforesaid Kunnappa and Katappa from the entries in the revenue records of the lands in question and also directed the Tahsildar to take possession of the said lands.
17. The original of the records is made available to this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. A reading of the FSL Report, prima facie, would go to show that the originals of the documents which were forwarded to the FSL for the purpose of its opinion were not furnished to the laboratory. The admitted signature as well as the disputed signature are undisputedly of the year 1966 and a report was obtained for the first time after 35 years in respect of the said 21 signatures by the Special Deputy Commissioner by forwarding photocopies of the documents. Except the said report from the FSL, there is nothing on record to show that the order dated 11.04.1966 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams) is a fraudulent or a forged document. No attempt is made by the Special Deputy Commissioner - respondent no.1 or by the State to hold an independent enquiry in this regard.
18. The material on record would go to show that in addition to Kunnappa and Katappa, there were several other applicants who were registered with occupancy rights of the lands under the provisions of the Act of 1954 by the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams) in the very same land bearing Sy. No.211 and for the reasons best known to respondent no.1 - Special Deputy Commissioner, no action has been taken as against the said orders. The original records reveal that one Sri K.Jayaram Reddy was also registered with occupancy rights in Sy. No.211 to the extent of 5 acres under the provisions of the Act of 1954 by the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams). The records would also reveal 22 that the aforesaid Jayaram Reddy had also filed O.S.No.973/1998 before the jurisdictional Civil Court against the State and the BDA seeking a decree of permanent injunction when his possession in respect of the land which was re-granted to him was sought to be interfered by the officials of the BDA. In the said suit, the BDA has contended that they had acquired the land bearing Sy. No.211 under the preliminary notification issued in the year 1977 and the final notification was issued in the year 1980. However, the suit was decreed in favour of the aforesaid Jayaram Reddy. The appeal filed by the BDA against the said judgment and decree in R.F.A.No.79/2006 was dismissed by this Court on 07.02.2014. The original records would also reveal that the State Government had not contested the said suit and in fact they had issued no objection to enter the name of the aforesaid Jayaram Reddy in the revenue records of the land in respect of which occupancy rights were registered in his favour under the provisions of the Act of 1954.
23
19. It is also not in dispute that the BDA has allotted sites in the lands in question to several persons and institutions and it is only thereafter the Tahsildar for the first time in the year 1995 had raised a doubt with regard to the genuineness of order registering occupancy rights in favour of Kunnappa and Katappa in the year 1966, based on which proceedings were initiated under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964. However, no steps were taken based on such a report by the Tahsildar to challenge the order dated 11.04.1966. On the other hand, during the second round of litigation, the Special Deputy Commissioner obtains a FSL Report behind the back of the private parties on the basis of the signatures found in the photocopies of the documents and without holding any independent enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the order dated 11.04.1966, only on the basis of such an FSL Report which cannot have any value or significance, has passed the order to delete the name of Kunnappa and Katappa from the revenue records of the lands in question and also to take possession of the said lands.
24
20. The State Government has been throughout contending before this Court that the lands in question which were granted to Kunnappa and Katappa are tank beds. However, no action is taken by the State Government to protect the tank bed even though the BDA has allotted sites in the said lands in favour of various allottees who have allegedly put up constructions in the sites allotted to them. Apparently, the Special Deputy Commissioner had initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964 only after the BDA had allotted sites in these lands in favour of certain persons and institutions, and therefore, the reason for initiating such a proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964 is very obvious.
21. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalavaraya Naidu's case and Hinch Lal Tiwari's case supra and the judgment of this Court in K.N.Manjunath's case and M/s. W.S.Insulators's case supra, would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the said judgments are rendered either in a case of fraud or in a case where 25 the grant was challenged on the ground that the authority had no jurisdiction to pass the order of grant, and therefore, the aforesaid judgments would not be of any aid to the appellants' case.
22. The Division Bench of this Court in Stumpp Scheule's case supra, at paragraph 25, has observed as under:
"25. It is thus seen that the Inams Abolition Act attaches finality to the orders granting registration of occupancy rights. What does it mean ? Is it not an implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts ? Is not the Inams Abolition Act a complete Code by itself ? Does it not provide machinery for adjudicating the rights of parties with appellate forum to correct the errors of the adjudicating authority ? If that is so, could Civil Courts still exercise general jurisdiction over the same dispute. Had the Legislature intended to provide dual remedies to parties or intended to establish two authorities to determine the same question ? We think not. The grant of occupancy right as 'Kadim' tenant, permanent tenant or any other tenant is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the special authority constituted under the Inams Abolition Act which is a special enactment. Its order is appealable to the prescribed authority and it then becomes final. It is, therefore, legitimate to infer that by reason of the provisions of Section 28 read with Section 31(3) of the Inams Abolition Act, the adjudication as to registration of occupancy right in respect of the land which immediately before the date of vesting was properly 26 included in the holding of the applicant becomes final and conclusive. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to reopen that matter."
23. In Ninganna's case supra, the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 30, has observed as under:
"30. A perusal of the impugned orders, relevant portions of which have been extracted earlier show that the Special Deputy Commissioner proceeded on the basis that the land was 'kharab' and concluded, they cannot be registered in favour of inamdar. The Special Deputy Commissioner has neither made any reference to nor has he considered, the entries in the revenue records and the revenue survey records. In the light of the stand taken by the parties, the question to be decided is whether the lands were tank beds or cultivated lands as on the date of vesting. This question being essentially a question of fact has to be decided after considering the documentary evidence in the form of revenue records and revenue survey records as also such oral evidence as might be adduced by the parties......"
24. From the aforesaid judgments of this Court, it is very clear that order of registering occupancy rights as a permanent tenant or any other tenant is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the special authority under the Act of 1954, which is a special enactment and it is for the said authority to consider the nature of the land before proceedings to pass an order in favour of the claimant. In 27 the present case, the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams), who is the competent authority under the Act of 1954, considering the claim of Kunnappa and Katappa had granted occupancy rights of the land in their favour and registered them as permanent tenants in respect of the lands in question and the said orders undisputedly have attained finality. The validity of such orders cannot be examined in a proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964. The revisional authority has no power to characterize the order or transaction based on which the entries have been made. In the present case, respondent no.1 has not only annulled the entries in the revenue records, but he has also directed resumption of the land. Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964 does not confer any jurisdiction on respondent no.1 to pass such orders.
25. It is a settled principle of law that if a party has any grievance against any order passed by a Competent Authority or Court, the said order is required to be challenged before an appropriate forum in the manner known to law and if the same is not done, party would be bound by such an order. If the order is passed 28 illegally or without following the procedure provided under law the said order cannot be brushed aside or ignored by the party who is adversely affected by the same. An illegal or irregular order passed without compliance of the procedure of law cannot be termed as an order passed without jurisdiction, and therefore not binding on the parties.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAFIQUE BIBI (DEAD) BY LRS VS SYED WALIUDDIN (DEAD)35 BY LRS AND OTHERS - (2004) SCC 287 at paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 has observed as follows :-
"8. A distinction exists between a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction and consequently being a nullity and not executable and a decree of the Court which is merely illegal or not passed in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. A decree suffering from illegality or irregularity of procedure, cannot be termed inexecutable by the executing Court; the remedy of a person aggrieved by such a decree is to have it set aside in a duly constituted legal proceedings or by a superior Court failing which he must obey the command of the decree. A decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be denuded of its efficacy by any callateral attack or in incidental proceedings.29
9. In Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors., [1970] 1 SCC 670, it has been held :-
"When the decree is made by a Court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record. But where the objection as to jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction.
10. It is not the plea of the appellant-
judgment debtor- that the Court which passed the decree did not have the jurisdiction to do so. It is also not their case that a ground for eviction of the tenants on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent was not available to the respondent-landlords within the meaning of the Delhi and Ajmer Act or the successor Rajasthan Act. The only submission made is that before passing the decree the Court should have afforded the tenant an opportunity of depositing the rent in arrears, which was not done. Firstly, we find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that it was for the tenants to have invited the attention of the Court by making an application in that regard so as to avail an opportunity of wiping out the effect of their default which gave rise to cause of action to the respondents, by depositing the rent during the pendency of the suit. That having not been done, the appellant-30
tenants cannot be heard to urge any infirmity in the decree. Secondly, accepting it at its face value, in the eyes of law, the challenge seeks to expose a procedural irregularity which may, at best, result in the decree being termed as an 'illegal decree', but that in itself would not amount to branding the decree as 'without jurisdiction' or 'a nullity'. The plea which is sought to be urged in the execution proceedings was available to be raised by the tenants before the High Court in an appeal against the decree. Such a plea was not taken before the passing of the decree and cannot now be allowed to be urged during the execution proceedings. It is unfortunate that a decree of eviction passed in a suit commenced in the year 1956 and culminating in a final decree in the year 1986 is still starving for its execution."
27. The appellants have not disputed that the Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams) was the competent authority to consider the claims under the Act of 1954, and therefore, it cannot be said that he had no jurisdiction to "entertain" the claims made by Kunnappa and Katappa for granting occupancy rights in land bearing Sy. No.211. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HINDUSTHAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD VS PUNNU SAHU (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - AIR 1970 SC 1384 has held that the expression "entertain" would mean "adjudicate upon" 31
or "proceed to consider on merits". In the case of NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA VS. IVORY PROPERTIES AND OTHERS -
AIR 2019 SC 5125, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 16, 17, 33 and 36 has observed as follows :-
"16. Jurisdiction is the power to decide and not merely the power to decide correctly. Jurisdiction is the authority of law to act officially. It is an authority of law to act officially in a particular matter in hand. It is the power to take cognizance and decide the cases. It is the power to decide rightly or wrongly. It is the power to hear and determine. Same is the foundation of judicial proceedings. It does not depend upon the correctness of the decision made. It is the power to decide justiciable controversy and includes questions of law as well as facts on merits. Jurisdiction is the right to hear and determine. It does not depend upon whether a decision is right or wrong. Jurisdiction means power to entertain a suit, consider merits, and render binding decisions, and "merits" means the various elements which enter into or qualify plaintiff's right to the relief sought. If the law confers a power to render a judgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction. The court must have control over the subject matter, which comes within classification limits of law under which Court is established and functions.
17. The word jurisdiction is derived from Latin words "Juris" and "dico," meaning "I speak by the law"
and does not relate to rights of parties as between each other but to the power of the court. Jurisdiction relates to a class of cases to which a particular case belongs. Jurisdiction is the authority by which a judicial officer takes cognizance and decides the cases. It only 32 presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court having control over subject matter which comes within classification limits of the law under which court has been established. It should have control over the parties litigant, control over the parties' territory, it may also relate to pecuniary as well as the nature of the class of cases. Jurisdiction is generally understood as the authority to decide, render a judgment, inquire into the facts, to apply the law, and to pronounce a judgment. When there is the want of general power to act, the court has no jurisdiction. When the court has the power to inquire into the facts, apply the law, render binding judgment, and enforce it, the court has jurisdiction. Judgment within a jurisdiction has to be immune from collateral attack on the ground of nullity. It has corelation with the constitutional and statutory power of tribunal or court to hear and determine. It means the power or capacity fundamentally to entertain, hear, and determine.
xxx xxx xxx
33. There is a difference between the existence of jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction. In case jurisdiction is exercised with material irregularity or with illegality, it would also constitute jurisdictional error. However, if a court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit but in exercise of jurisdiction, a mistake has been committed, though it would be a jurisdictional error but not lack of it. It may be a jurisdictional error open for interference in appellate or revisional jurisdiction. xxx xxx 33 xxx
36. In a case, jurisdictional facts, as well as adjudicatory facts, may arise. When jurisdictional facts to entertain are missing, the court/tribunal cannot act at all. In the case of adjudicatory facts, the court can proceed with the trial of the case exercising jurisdiction, and the same implies that the court has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter, that is called the power to examine on merits. Adjudication is the power to proceed to consider on merits."
28. The entries in the revenue records of the lands in question based on the order dated 11.04.1966 were made in favour of Kunnappa and Katappa in the year 1966 itself and an endorsement to the said effect was issued by the Tahsildar. The said entries had continued for nearly 30 years, until respondent no.1 directed deletion of the same in the year 1995 based on the suo moto report filed by the Tahsildar. It is pertinent to note that the BDA in the meanwhile had allotted sites in the very same land to various persons and institutions and thereafter all of a sudden, the Tahsildar makes a report doubting the genuineness of the order passed in the year 1966 and respondent no.1 within three months from the date of such report anulls the entry made in the revenue records on the basis of the said order of the year 1966 34 and directs the Tahsildar to take possession of the lands in question. How and when the fraud was detected by the Tahsildar who had submitted a suo moto report in the year 1995, which is nearly after 30 years from the date of grant orders is not forthcoming from the records. In D.Narasing Rao's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 32 & 33, has observed as under:
"32. In the case at hand, while the entry sought to be corrected is described as fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice impugned before the High Court as to when was the alleged fraud discovered by the State. A specific statement in that regard was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in the notice issued to the respondents. The attempt of the appellant State to demonstrate that the notice was issued within a reasonable period of the discovery of the alleged fraud is, therefore, futile. At any rate, when the Government allowed the land in question for housing sites to be given to government employees in the year 1991, it must be presumed to have known about the record and the revenue entries concerning the parcel of land made in the ordinary course of official business. Inasmuch as, the notice was issued as late as on 31- 12-2004, it was delayed by nearly 13 years. No explanation has been offered even for this delay assuming that the same ought to be counted only from the year 1991. Judged from any angle the notice seeking to reverse the entries made half a century 35 ago, was clearly beyond reasonable time and was rightly quashed.
33. Having said that we must make it clear that we have not gone into the correctness of the alleged fraudulent entry nor have we expressed any opinion whether the quashing of the notice dated 21-12-2004 would prevent the State from taking such other steps as may be permissible under any provision of law. The High Court has, as a matter of fact, made it clear that the State Government shall be free to take any other steps or proceedings in accordance with law qua the land in question. That liberty should suffice for we have examined the matter only from the narrow angle whether the khasra pahani entry of 1954-1955 could be corrected at this belated stage in exercise of the revisional powers vested in the competent authority under Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. That question having been answered in the negative these appeals must fail and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER VS MOHAN LAL
- (2010)1 SCC 512, after referring to its earlier judgments in the case of Dilbagh Rai Jarry Vs Union of India - (1973)3 SCC 554, Madras Port Trust Vs Hymanshu International by its Proprietor (1979)4 SCC 176, and Bhag Singh & Others Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh through LAC, Chandigarh - (1985)3 SCC 737, 36 has expressed that the Government and the statutory authorities should be a model or ideal litigants and should not putforth false, frivolous, vexatious and unjust contentions to obstruct the pave of justice. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under:
"4. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigation by governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and highhanded manner. They can not behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be corrected."
30. It is trite law that an authority who approaches the court with tainted hands is not entitled for any reliefs. The courts are required to ensure that its process is not misused or abused by anybody. The courts which are already overburdened, are being further clogged in view 37 of frivolous litigations and whenever the courts come across such frivolous and vexatious litigations, the same is required to be dealt with iron hands.
31. The issue involved in the present proceedings is only with regard to the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964, wherein he has directed to delete the name of the grantees from the revenue records of the lands which were granted to them under the provisions of the Act of 1954, even though the grant order has not been challenged till date and the same has reached finality, and therefore, the various contentions urged by the allottees of sites by the BDA in the lands in question is not required to be gone into in these proceedings.
32. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions, at paragraph 31, has observed as under:
"31. The Deputy Commissioner is restrained from exercising the very power yet again for one more abusive or illegal order to be brought into existence. On the other hand, liberty is reserved to the State Government and the revenue authorities to take 38 corrective action elsewhere for any corrective measures if needed as asserted by Sri. Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate that the petitioners are claiming some right, title and interest based on some bogus re-grant orders or based on forged signature of earlier Special Deputy Commissioner. They are all matters which have to be examined independently in appropriate proceedings and not in a provision like revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Deputy Commissioner under section 136(3) of the Act and it is for this reason, the Deputy Commissioner is restrained from exercising the very power yet again."
33. Inspite of the learned Single Judge observing that the Special Deputy Commissioner has been passing abusive and illegal orders repeatedly and though liberty is reserved to the State Government and the revenue authorities to take corrective action in accordance with law as against the order dated 11.04.1966, for the reasons best known to the appellants, without taking recourse to such steps, this intra court appeals are filed assailing the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
34. In view of the foregoing analysis made by us, it is very clear that this proceedings initiated by the State and its authorities is not only frivolous, but also vexatious, and therefore, the same is liable to be 39 dismissed with exemplary costs. Accordingly, the following order.
35. The writ appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs.One lakh and the appellants are directed to deposit the same before the Advocates' Library Fund, Advocates Association, Bengaluru, within a period of three months from the date of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE KK