Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunath Dasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2019
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.27089/2019(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. MANJUNATH DASAPPA
S/O LATE SRI DASAPPA
AGED 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.364-365
9TH MAIN, J P NAGAR 4TH PHASE
DOLLARS COLONY
BENGALURU-560 078 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASEKHARA BABU, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT AND EX-OFFICIO
JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
4TH FLOOR, K G ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
VINAYAKA NAGAR
ANEKAL TALUK
ANEKAL
-2-
BENGALURU-562 106
4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL
VINAYAKA NAGAR
ANEKAL TALUK
ANEKAL
BENGALURU-562106
5. THE SPECIAL TASHILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL
VINAYAKA NAGAR
ANEKAL
BENGALURU-562106 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.06.2019
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ENDORSEMENT OF 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 01.06.2019 VIDE ANENXURE-B
RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN SY.NO.183/2,
BUKKASAGARA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner herein is before this Court seeking quashing of endorsement of 3rd respondent - ADLR dated 6.6.2019 in No.ADLR/ANK/CRT/6/2018-19 and the endorsement of 5th respondent - Special Tahsildar, dated -3- 1.6.2019 in No.LND/(J) CR/273/2017-18, which are Annexures-A and B. He would further seek direction to respondents 2 and 3, namely JDLR and ADLR to rectify the survey records and issue a modified Akarbandh for the schedule lands pursuant to the order of Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban District in RP.No.12/2014-15, disposed of by order dated 17.8.2017 and subsequent rectification order dated 3.10.2017 vide Annexures-C and D, which are followed by Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South in No.LND.Anekal/02/2017-18 vide order dated 23.11.2017 and subsequently, by Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk, in issuing notice dated 14.1.2019 in proceedings bearing No.LND/5/CR/273/2017-18.
2. The petitioner would also seek direction to respondent authorities to issue modified RTC and mutation record for the petition schedule land vide orders of Deputy Commissioner as per Annexures-C and D with further orders of the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance to that vide -4- Annexure-F and notice of Tahsildar at Annexure-L. In fact to secure the aforesaid orders from the competent authorities, the petitioner herein has completed two rounds of litigations before this Court in WP.No.13597/2017 and WP.No.14312/2019.
3. To sum up, the brief facts of the litigation are as under:
Petitioner is owner of land bearing Sy.No.183/2, which is portion of total extent of land bearing Sy.No.183, which measured earlier 38 acres 38 guntas, wherein 15 acres 23 guntas was ain land, 23 acres 20 guntas was 'A' kharab and 3 Acres was 'B' kharab. It is seen that the said land was phoded into 183/1 and 183/2 in or around 1974, where the portion which is assigned to 183/2 together measured 28 acres 38 guntas. Out of that ain land is 6 acres 13 guntas and the total kharab available was 22 acres 25 guntas, which was kept in 'C' kharab without assigning classification to that total extent of kharab. It is this 'C' kharab classification which necessitated the petitioner herein in -5- seeking re-classification by filing an application on 29.9.2012 to Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk, who inturn promptly recommended it to the ADLR for further action of conducting survey and re-assessing kharab, which is said to be done on 19.9.2014 in re-classifying the entire extent under ain land and also 'A' and 'B' kharab. In the said re-
classification, ain land is 6 acres 13 guntas as it already existed, out of kharab which was kept in 'C' kharab, it is classified into 'A', 'B' and 'C' kharab.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same, preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru in Revision Petition No.12/2014-15, where the said matter was kept pending for long time in necessitating the petitioner to approach this Court by filing a writ petition in WP.No.13597/2017, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 31.3.2017 in directing the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the revision petition pending on its file at the earliest. It is pursuant to the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, said revision petition was -6- taken up and disposed of by order dated 17.8.2017, which is at Annexure-C. It is stated that since there were clerical mistakes in said order dated 17.8.2017, to set right the same the revision petition was again taken up for correction by the Deputy Commissioner and rectification order was passed on 3.10.2017. With this, the matter reached one stage.
5. In view of the rectification order dated 3.10.2017 the classification accepted is, in addition to 6 acres 13 guntas of ain land already existed, another extent of 19 acres 10 guntas was added as ain land from 'A' Kharab which was 19 acres 25 guntas. The remaining 15 guntas out of original 'A' kharab 19 acres 25 guntas, was retained as 'A' kharab and what was available in 'B' kharab at 3 acres was retained as it is. With this, the ain land was increased from 6 acres 13 guntas to 25 acres 23 guntas. So far as 19 acres 10 guntas which was classified as ain land is concerned, the value was required to be assessed and collected by the Deputy Commissioner. For the said purpose, an application -7- was filed by the petitioner before the Tahsildar, which was accepted by the Tahsildar and on the basis of said application he issued notice to the petitioner with reference to amount that is required to be deposited for regularization of a portion of 'A' kharab as ain land. The said amount is already paid by the petitioner on 22.3.2018. With this second round of misery to the petitioner started.
6. It is seen that, since nothing was done in furtherance of depositing the amount for regularization of 'A' kharab land as ain land, the petitioner approached this Court in WP.No.14312/2019 seeking direction to the respondents to complete the work of Akarabandh, RTC and Mutation with reference to the modified extent of ain land, 'A' and 'B' kharab lands in Sy.No.183/2. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Bench by order dated 5.4.2019.
7. It is necessary to state that on 5.4.2019, WP.No.14312/2019 was disposed of on the submission of Sri.C.Mahadevaiah, Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk and -8- Miss.Kusuma Latha, DDLR who were present before this Court, wherein they stated that within 60 days the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 17.8.2017 and subsequent rectification order dated 3.10.2017 would be implemented. Thereafter, it is seen that a letter is written by DDLR to the Tahsildar for completion of the aforesaid work and the Tahsildar in turn written a letter to the Special Tahsildar. Thereafter, it is seen that there are certain communications between the Special Tahsildar and ADLR, where there appears to be blame game in trying to somehow stall the work which was undertaken to be completed by DDLR and Tahsildar before this Court on 5.4.2019. It is in this background the present writ petition is filed seeking direction to respondents for completion of the work as stated supra.
8. When this matter is taken up for consideration, this day, this Court secured the presence of Miss.Kusuma Latha, DDLR and Mr.C.Mahadevaiah, Tahsildar of Anekal Taluk, who had personally given undertaking before this -9- Court in WP.No.14312/2019 and the said two officers were called upon to file their affidavits with reference to the steps that they have taken to comply with the undertaking which was given by them in the earlier round of litigation. Accordingly, they have filed their affidavits along with annexures to that, which would clearly indicate that both of them have complied with the undertaking in informing their subordinate officers to complete the work, which is sought for by the petitioner.
9. In the meanwhile, this Court also secured the presence of Mr.Anand, ADLR as well as Mr.Manjunath, the Special Tahsildar, who are present before the Court. When all the orders are shown to them and when they were confronted with Annexure-B which would clearly indicate that The Special Tahsildar has raised some flimsy grounds which are totally unconnected to the matter, which is already resolved, is tried to be reiterated by him. In fact, even according to Tahsildar, by issuing such endorsement
- 10 -
dated 1.6.2019 the Special Tahsildar is trying to hold the work back for the reasons best known to him.
10. When all these officers, i.e., Mr.Mahadevaiah, Miss.Kusuma Latha, Mr.Manjunath and Mr.Anand, who are present before the Court are trying to shift the blame on one another. When the Special Tahsildar is enquired as to why he has issued endorsement at Annexure-B dated 1.6.2019, he would state that on the advice of Revenue Inspector he has done the same. Accordingly, when the Revenue Inspector Mr.Diwakar, who is personally present before the Court is enquired about the said aspect, he would state that it is his belief that whenever Akarband and RTC is required to be done, first the Akarband will have to be completed, therefore, he had suggested to the Special Tahsildar for issuance of Annexure-B.
11. With this, what is seen is, there appears to be some understanding between the authorities in somehow keeping the order of Deputy Commissioner on the backburner and ensuring that the relief which is granted to
- 11 -
the petitioner before all the authorities including this Court is not given effect to by the clandestine act of the Revenue Inspector and Special Tahsildar. Their conduct appears to be deliberate in stalling the orders that were passed by this Court pursuant to the undertaking given by the responsible officers of the State, namely DDLR and Tahsildar.
12. In that view of the matter, this Court feel it is appropriate that an enquiry is required to be initiated against the conduct of Mr.Manjunath, the Special Tahsildar and also Mr.Diwakar, the Revenue Inspector. Therefore, this Court would direct the Principal Revenue Secretary to keep the aforesaid two officers under suspension after following due procedure and thereafter initiate departmental enquiry to enquire into their conduct in trying to meddle with the implementation of the order of this Court thereby disobeying the order of this Court which amounts to contempt of Court, while doing so, also trying to subvert the undertaking given by the superior officers.
- 12 -
13. Accordingly, with aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of in directing the ADLR and Tahsildar, who are present before the Court to complete the rectification of Akarbandh and consequently, issue RTC in showing the actual ain land available to the petitioner at 25 acres 23 guntas in Sy.No.183/2 and also to show 'A' kharab at 15 guntas and 'B' kharab at 3 acres as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner. The same shall be completed within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings against the said Officers without approaching this Court for any other relief.
14. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Revenue Secretary for compliance of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-