Karnataka High Court
Sri Y C Rama Reddy vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 21 September, 2012
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
WRIT APPEAL NO.17307/2011(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN
1 SRI Y C RAMA REDDY
S/O Y KOTA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT KALLUBALU VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
ALSO AT R/AT 1018
25TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-41
... APPELLANT
(By Sri : GOUTAM, RAJESWAR & NARAYANRAO,
ADVs. FOR APPELLANT)
AND :
1 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD
BANGALORE-560009
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
K G ROAD
BANGALORE-560009
2
3 THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
ANEKAL
BANGALORE DISTRICT
4 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUIDLING
BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT : M.C.AKKAMAHADEVI,AGA FOR
RESPONDENTS )
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
21951/11 DATED 29/8/2011
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, MANJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, NO.RRT-48/10-11 dt.19.3.2011 which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.21951/11 dt.29.8.2011 are called in question in this appeal.
3
2. According to the appellant one P.Krishnappa was granted 5 acres of land in Sy.No.90 of Kallabalu village in Anekal taluk who sold the same in favour of Kaverappa under registered sale deed dt.24.9.1959 and thereafter Kaverappa sold the said land in favour of the appellant Y.C. Rama Reddy, under the registered sale deed dt.29.6.1991. Before purchasing the land by the appellant, the mutation was transferred to the name of Kaverappa in M.E.No. 5/51-52 who was the original grantee. Thereafter the mutation entry was transferred to the name of the appellant in M.R.No. 14/1991-92.
3. All of a sudden a report was sent by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, stating that as per the records maintained by the Tahsildar, Anekal, no land was granted in Sy.No.90 of Kallabalu village and that mutation stands in the name of the appellant has to be set aside. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. The Special Deputy Commissioner, 4 Bangalore, inspite of producing all the documents, passed an order directing the Tahsildar to delete the name of the appellant in column 9 of RTC extracts and directed the Tahsildar to take possession of the property to the Government and make necessary entries in the revenue records treating it as a Government land.
4. The order of the Special Deputy Commissioner was questioned before the learned Single Judge by filing the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition solely on the ground that such disputed questions of fact cannot be examined by a Writ court and such case has to be decided only by a competent Civil court. Accordingly, he dismissed the Writ Petition. Challenging these two orders, the present appeal is filed.
5. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and Govt. Advocate for the respondents, as the dispute in the appeal is whether 5 acres of land in Sy.No.90 of Kallabalu village had been granted to the 5 original grantee Krishnappa or not, we had directed the Govt. Advocate to secure the Grant Register maintained by the Tahsildar, Anekal pertaining to Kallabalu village.
6. Today, the Tahsildar, Anekal, has made available the c.c. of the Grant Register to show that land in fact was granted to Krishnappa in the year 1951-52 and thereafter the land was sold by Krishnappa in favour of Kaverappa and in turn the appellant had purchased the same from Kaverappa. By looking into the records produced by the Tahsildar, Anekal, it is clear that the land in question was really granted by the Government in favour of Krishnappa, vendor of the appellant's vendor and Krishnappa in turn has sold the property to Kaverappa, from him appellant has purchased. The mutation entry was standing in the name of all the three persons. The mutation entry was also transferred to the name of the appellant in M.R.NO.14/1991-92. 16 years later, the proceeding was initiated by the Special Deputy 6 Commissioner based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, as if the land in question was not granted by the Government and it is a Government property and that records are to be changed to the name of the Government by resuming the land to the Government.
7. From this it is clear, that the Tahsildar is instrumental for initiating the proceedings. As a matter fact, we have seen that the very same land was got converted from agricultural to non- agricultural purpose u/s 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. When the land has been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose, when assessment has been collected from time to time by Government, we are at a loss to understand what prompted the Tahsildar to sent a report stating that it is a Government land and proceedings are to be initiated u/s 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Even if the Tahsildar had entertained a doubt in regard to the genuineness of the grant, the Tahsildar being the custodian of the Darkast register and also 7 also the Grant Register, was required to examine and verify whether really it was granted or not. Without doing so, solely on the ground that the Darkast records was not available, he should not have requested the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the revenue entries. Even if the Darkast records were not available, when grant register was available with the Tahsildar, the least that one can except from a Tahsildar is to verify the grant register before initiating the proceedings. Without doing so, Tahsildar is an instrumental to initiate the proceedings and to see that the land of the appellant is resumed to the Government, which has not only caused mental torture and harassment to the appellant, the appellant is made to run from pillar to post by approaching the Deputy Commissioner by filing objections by engaging a lawyer and thereafter to file a Writ Petition and Writ Appeal.
8. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Special Deputy 8 Commissioner, dt.19.3.2011 passed in RRT 48/10-11 is set aside. Consequently the order passed by the learned Single Judge is also set aside and respondents are directed to restore the revenue entries to the name of the appellant.
Considering the harassment caused to the appellant, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has to be paid to the appellant as costs by the respondent within four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak