Karnataka High Court
Smt Rukmaniyamma vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.6830 OF 2013 (KLR-REG)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RUKMANIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O VENKATAPPA
EKARAJAPURA VILLAGE
SULIBELE HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI G. PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 001
....RESPONDENTS
(SRI SANDESH KUMAR .M, HCGP)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DT:13.12.2010 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN REVISION
PETITION NO.149(1)/2006-07 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.149(1)/2006-07 as per Annexure-F.
2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petition are as under:
The case of the petitioner is that she is in possession and enjoyment of petition land bearing Sy.No.23 measuring 2 acres situated at Ekarajapura Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk. The petitioner has contended that she is cultivating the petition land for last 30 years by investing huge amount and labour. The petitioner has also averred in the writ petition that since she was unauthorizedly cultivating the petition land, the respondent 3
- officials have imposed fine and she has paid tax and tatkal thathe in respect of petition land. The petitioner moved an application before the Land Grant Committee to regularize the unauthorized occupation. The case of the petitioner is that the Land Grant Committee after considering the cultivation, possession and enjoyment, has proceeded to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has furnished the copy of Saguvali Chit issued by the Tahsildar vide Annexure-E.
3. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that at the instance of member of Legislative Assembly of Hosakote Taluk, the respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has initiated suo motu proceedings by invoking the provisions of Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and has consequently, cancelled the Saguvali Chit issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the 4 entire enquiry held by respondent No.2 is one without authority and in absence of materials indicating that Saguvali Chit was issued by concocting documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend and submit to this Court that respondent No.2 has not assigned any reasons while canceling the Saguvali Chit and the order under challenge is not at all a speaking order. He would submit to this Court that at the instance of the local MLA, the respondent No.2 without verifying the records and without holding an enquiry by ignoring the procedure contemplated under Rule 108(K) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, the impugned order vide Annexure-F is passed. The order under challenge has lead to miscarriage of justice and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would support the reasoning assigned by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order. He submits to this Court that the Saguvali Chit issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar is 5 without basis and that there are absolutely no records indicating that the claim of petitioner was examined by the Land Grant Committee. He would submit to this Court that the Saguvali Chit is concocted and the respondent No.2 has rightly cancelled the said Saguvali Chit.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and examined the materials on record.
7. On perusal of the Saguvali Chit which is furnished at Annexure-E, it is forthcoming that the Saguvali Chit refers to the proceedings. On perusal of para 14 of the Saguvali Chit, it is also forthcoming that the Land Grant Committee has conducted proceedings on 18.01.2006 and the proceedings is numbered as No.LNDR UCSR 241/03-04. On perusal of the order under challenge, it no where indicates that respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has examined the proceedings of the Land Grant Committee and there is also a reference that there was a committee meeting held on 18.01.2006. 6 It appears that the Tahsildar has issued Saguvali Chit consequent to the committee meeting held on 18.01.2006. The order under challenge is not sustainable since it appears that respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, having received a letter from the Member of Legislative Assembly, Hosakote, has in a mechanical manner proceeded to cancel the Saguvali Chit. I am of the view that there is absolutely no enquiry conducted by the respondent No.2. The present case on hand squarely falls under the provisions of Rule 108(K) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. The respondent No.2 cannot in a mechanical manner, on speculation and on apprehension, proceed to cancel the Saguvali Chit. If there are serious allegations that the entire proceedings of Land Grant Committee and consequential issuance of Saguvali Chit are concocted, a detailed enquiry has to be held and the matter needs to be examined independently in appropriate proceedings and respondent No.2 cannot examine the said issue under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The respondent No.2 has also not assigned any 7 reasons for canceling the Saguvali Chit. The order under challenge also does not refer to the proceedings of the Land Grant Committee which is referred to in the Saguvali Chit. Para 14 of the Saguvali Chit indicates that a meeting was conducted on 18.01.2002. All these material aspects are not taken into consideration and it appears that the respondent No.2 has given more emphasis on the recommendation of the MLA and has proceeded to pass order thereby canceling the Saguvali Chit by invoking provisions of Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
8. The respondent No.2 has not recorded any finding in regard to the meeting held on 18.01.2006. There is no positive finding by the respondent No.2 indicating that on verification of records, it was found that no such meeting was held by the Land Grant Committee. It appears that on mere speculation this order under challenge is passed by the respondent No.2. The Authorities while regularizing unauthorized occupation are 8 required to be cautious and it is only after ascertaining and after due enquiry, Saguvali Chit is required to be issued to a landless person. While canceling the Saguvali Chit, the Authorities are required to be double cautious since any action on the part of the officials in either recalling or canceling Saguvali Chit may result in miscarriage of justice and may cause irreparable loss to the landless people.
9. The present enquiry initiated by second respondent is pursuant to the Government Notification No PÉAE 807 JJ¸ïr 2014 dated 10.10.2014, wherein the State has directed the Deputy Commissioners to hold enquiry so as to free all the lands from encroachment or unauthorized occupation. It appears, second respondent by exercising power under Section 136(3) virtually has acted on consideration of material which fell outside the scope of provision of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by holding an enquiry under Section 136(3). Second respondent is only required to rectify the entries made in the revenue records where the entries are made 9 without any basis for claiming mutation entries. In the present case on hand, the petitioner is asserting his rights on the basis of an order passed by the Land Grant Committee and consequent issuance of saguvali chit. The action of the second respondent in passing the impugned order is squarely covered by the proposition laid down by this Court in Kunnappa Vs State of Karnataka and Others (2012(1) KLJ 28). This Court while examining similar cases has held that the Deputy Commissioner while exercising power under Section 136(3) is required to act on relevant provisions and within the limits of the statutory power. This Court was of the view that the authority while exercising power under Section 136(3) cannot examine the correctness of re-grant orders, relaxation orders or the saguvali chit and all these matters are to be examined independently in appropriate proceedings and not in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Act. This proposition has been reiterated by a Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in 10 Sanny Kulathakal vs State of Karnataka and others, reported in 2015(3) Kar.L.J 276.
10. In view of the above said provisions, if the mutation entries are effected on the basis of the order passed by the Land Grant Committee and consequently the saguvali chit is issued and based on the above said orders, mutation is effected and names are incorporated strictly in terms of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, then the entries in the record of rights have achieved finality. In this background, I am of the view that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the said orders under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The implications of provisions of 133 of the Act would also come into play since the entry in the record of rights would achieve finality wherever mutation is effected based on orders passed by the competent authority. These entries are sacrosanct and the same cannot be changed by the Deputy 11 Commissioner or any authority except in appropriate proceedings.
11. If the entry is based on an order passed by a competent authority, the second respondent has to first summarily examine whether the mutation entries are based on an order. If the entries are in terms of an order and consequently saguvali chit is issued, then, the second respondent has to close the proceedings and is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. However, it is needless to say that he cannot proceed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
12. In the light of the above said findings recorded by this Court, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.149(1)/2006-07 as per Annexure-F is quashed and the matter is remanded back to second respondent-Deputy Commissioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA/alb*