Karnataka High Court
Mr. B. Ramachandra vs The Deputy Commissioner on 23 September, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.18476 OF 2022 (KLR - RES)
BETWEEN
MR. B. RAMACHANDRA
W/O LATE BORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.2727/A,
2ND CROSS, K G KOPPALU,
MYSURU - 570 009.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSORE SUB DIVISION,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 005.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
KASABA HOBLI,
-2-
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 008.
5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
SRIRAMPURA CIRCLE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 008.
6. THE ZONAL FOREST OFFICER
URBAN GREENING ZONE,
MYSURU - 570 014.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2020 IN
R.A.NO.49/2013 PASSED BY THE R2 ANNEXURE - N;
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2022 IN RP.NO.96/2021
PASSED BY THE R1 ANNEXURE - P AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for all the respondents.
The petitioner, who acquired ownership of 2 acres and 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.31/2 of Malalavadi -3- Village, Kasba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, during the year 1989, is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was originally granted in favour of Sri.Karigowda, the grand father of the petitioner herein; a saguvali chit was issued in his favour and his name was entered in the land revenue records. After the demise of Sri.Karigowda, there was a family partition that took place in the year 1961, and the land in question fell to the share of Sri. Siddaiah S/o Karigowda. Sri. Siddaiah executed a Release Deed, though unregistered, in favour of the petitioner on 17.04.1989 and gave his consent to transfer the katha in favour of the petitioner herein. Consequently, the name of the petitioner herein was -4- entered in the land records in terms of M.R.No.2/1990-91.
3. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner was in lawful occupation of the land in question and the mutation entry in the land records stood in the name of the petitioner, the revenue inspector seems to have drawn a mahazar and made a recommendation to the Tahsildar stating that the land in question which forms part of Sy.No.31 is a tank bed. The tank totally measures about 44 acres and 38 guntas, and it is not known how the name of Sri.Karigowda was entered in the land records. On the recommendation of the revenue inspector, the Tahsildar proceeded to pass an order dated 25.07.2001, at Annexure-L in RRC(K)86/2001-02 directing the removal of the name of Sri.Karigowda from the land records. Consequently, by mutation entry in M.R.No.1/2001-02 the name of -5- Sri.Karigowda was removed from the land records. Learned counsel submits that when admittedly the name of the petitioner Sri.Ramachandra was standing in the land records in terms of M.R.No.2/1990-91, without notice to the petitioner, the Tahsildar could not have passed the said order dated 25.07.2001. Nevertheless, since the petitioner was not aware of the said order passed by the Tahsildar and when he came to know of the same in the year 2013, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub Division. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal and the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner was also dismissed by order dated 02.02.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original order passed by the Tahsildar on -6- 25.07.2001 was without authority of law. Learned counsel submits that if the Tahsildar was of the opinion that the land in question is government land or that it is a tank bed area and the name of the petitioner's grandfather, Sri.Karigowda, could not have been entered in the land records, the Tahsildar should have filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner or should have requested suo-motu proceedings to be initiated in terms of Section 136(3) of the Act, at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner. That not having been done, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to initiate suo-motu proceedings in terms of Section 136(3) of the Act, on his own motion or on an application of a party, and examine any records made under Sections 127 and 129 and pass -7- such orders as he may deem fit. Moreover, it is submitted that if the land is said to be a tank bed area, then it is the duty of the revenue authorities to protect the tank bed area from any sort of encroachment.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that even in the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, it is found that out of 46 acres and 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.31, 15 acres are said to be a tank bed area. Admittedly, 9 acres of land have been granted to Iskcon, 1 acre 20 guntas are reserved for the purpose of burial ground etc. If that is the admitted fact, then the authorities are contradicting themselves in claiming that the land in question is a tank bed area and could not have been granted to any person. Moreover, the original order -8- passed by the Tahsildar is also without authority of law, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The mutation entry in M.R.No.2/1990- 91 could not have been cancelled by the Tahsildar without notice to the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondent authorities that the grant made in favour of Sri.Karigowda was at any point of time cancelled by the competent authority. On the contrary, it has been contended by the Tahsildar that there were no records available to show that a grant was made in favour of Sri.Karigowda. As such a finding could not have been given by the Tahsildar without issuing notice to the petitioner, and before passing such an order, the Tahsildar was required to quote the provision under which action was sought to be initiated by the Tahsildar. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the Deputy Commissioner could have initiated proceedings -9- invoking the revisional powers under Section 136(3) of the Act. However, even in respect of the suo-motu powers, this Court in W.P.No.4661/2022 by order dated 07.09.2022 in the case of Sannamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, has held that action is required to be taken within a reasonable period. If action is not taken within a reasonable period, the Deputy Commissioner shall not be permitted to invoke the suo-motu powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act.
7. Viewed from any angle, the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 08.07.2020 in R.A.No.49/2013 and the revisional orders dated 02.02.2022 in -10- R.P.No.96/2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. It is required to be held that the original order dated 25.07.2001 passed by the Tahsildar, Mysore Taluk at Annexure-L is also without authority of law. Therefore, the same is also quashed and set aside. Needless to observe that if the respondent state is of the opinion that the land in question forms part of a tank bed, then appropriate action may be initiated by the State Government, only in accordance with law, to remove all the encroachments made on the tank bed area. But before that, the State Government is also required to take note of the fact that land has been granted in the same survey number in favour of Iskcon and a part of the land is also reserved for burial ground.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE rv