Karnataka High Court
Krishnappa vs The Secretary on 22 August, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP.11039/2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.11039/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
Krishnappa
S/o. Late Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.20, Kannanayakana Agrahara,
Amrutha Nagar Road,
Anjanapura Post,
Jigani Hobli,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District - 560 065. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. M.C.Basavaraju, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Secretary
Government of Karnataka
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Special Deputy Commissioner
Bangalore Urban District,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Venkatesh
Since died by his LRs
a. Smt. Hanumakka
W/o. Late Venkatesh.
WP.11039/2012
2
b. Sri. Kumar
S/o. Late Venkatesh.
c. Sri. Ramesh
S/o. Late Venkatesh.
d. Smt. Sunanda
D/o. Late Venkatesh.
e. Smt. Ratnamma
D/o. Late Venkatesh.
All are R/at Opp. Hotel Ganesh
Near Halamma Temple,
No.74/1, Helegurapana Palya
Main Road, Tavarekere Post,
Bangalore.
4. Sri. Krishnappa
S/o. Giddappa,
Kulume Palya Village,
Jigani Hobli,
Anjanapura Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District.
5. The Assistant Director of
Land Records
Bangalore Sub-Division,
K.R.Circle,
Bangalore.
6. The Tahasildar
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore District. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Vijayakumar Patil, GP for R1, R2, R5 AND R6)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order
bearing No.BHUTHAMSA/BHUUUNI:APPEAL 52/2006-07and
WP.11039/2012
3
BHUMAPANA APPEAL 10/2006-07 dated 12.01.2009 passed by
the 2nd respondent.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1, 2, 5 & 6.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner is calling in question the order dated 12.01.2009 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') challenging the Phodi Durasthi of land Sy.No.39 of Gollahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and assigning new Sy.No.82 insofar it pertains to the land granted in favour of the father of the petitioner.
3. Petitioner claims to be the son of late Munivenkatappa who was granted two acres of land comprised in Sy.No.39, Block No.6 of Gollahalli Village. The grant was made during the year 1955. The father of the petitioner sold the land in question during the year 1971. Subsequently, proceedings under the WP.11039/2012 4 provisions of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') came to be initiated at the instance of the father of the petitioner and the land came to be restored in his favour during the year 1997.
4. It is necessary to notice here that Sy.No.39 had been granted in favour of several persons and a Phodi Durasthi during the course of survey settlement was made as back as in the year 1971 assigning New Survey Nos.68 to 101 to the old Sy.No.39 of Gollahalli Village. On restoration of the land, the father of the petitioner was found to be in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.82 and his name was entered in respect of 2 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.82.
5. His request before the Assistant Director of Land Records and the Tahsildar was to conduct a fresh survey and Phodi Durasthi of the land so as to locate the land restored in his favour in Sy.Nos.83 & 84 as he was in possession of 2 acres of land in the said survey numbers and not in Sy.No.82. This request was rejected by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bangalore - respondent No.5 herein. It is necessary to notice that the petitioner had challenged the survey and Phodi WP.11039/2012 5 Durasthi conducted earlier. The Assistant Director of Land Records found that there was no justification for interfering with the same and for directing re-survey.
6. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was originally filed before the Joint Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records which came to be later on transferred to the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Special Deputy Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner and on perusal of the entire materials on record, has come to the conclusion that the survey settlement and Phodi Durasthi work of the land was effected as back as in the year 1971, as was evident from the Tippani Copy dated 15.12.1971 and that an extent of 2 acres of land granted in favour of the petitioner comprised in Sy.No.39, Chalta No.6 was identified and assigned new number as Sy.No.82 and that the petitioner had nothing to do with Sy.Nos.83 & 84. The Special Deputy Commissioner has further found that the father of the petitioner had in fact sold the said land in the year 1971 and it was only in the year 1997 that the land in question was restored to him in the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the PTCL Act. It is also held by the Special Deputy Commissioner that in respect of Sy.Nos.83 & 84, the WP.11039/2012 6 names of Sri Yellappa S/o.Thirumalappa and Smt.Hanumakka W/o Dasappa have been respectively entered as khatedars and therefore the request made by the petitioner for effecting re- survey and to locate the land granted to the petitioner/father of the petitioner in Sy.Nos.83 & 84 cannot be granted.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has in fact been in possession of 2 acres of land which formed part of Sy.Nos.83 & 84 and not Sy.No.82 and therefore it has become necessary for the petitioner to seek re- survey.
8. Learned Government Pleader strongly supports the action of the authorities.
9. On consideration of the entire materials on record, I find that there is no substance in the grievance made by the petitioner. As can be found from the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, the Phodi Durasthi work had been done way back in the year 1971 and new Sy.No.82 was assigned to the portion that was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner. He has not made any grievance against the said survey conducted way back in the year 1971. In fact, he WP.11039/2012 7 has sold the land that was granted to him by way of a registered Sale Deed and later on having initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act, the land has been restored to his possession during the year 1997. Even after the order restoring the land, the father of the petitioner and later on the petitioner have not taken any steps, nor they have made any grievance regarding the re-survey. It is only during the year 2005-06 that a grievance is made regarding the illegality committed in locating the land in Sy.No.82 instead of showing the same in Sy.Nos.83 & 84. Such a grievance made without any basis, at such belated stage cannot be entertained. The Special Deputy Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal. No apparent illegality or error of jurisdiction is pointed out warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction with the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the wit petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS