Karnataka High Court
Sri Thimmarayappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 4506 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 4510 OF 2022(KLR-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 8228 OF 2022 (KLR-RES
IN W.P. NO.4506/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
Digitally
signed by
1a. SMT. PAPAMMA
JUANITA
THEJESWINI W/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS
KARNATAKA R/AT: #102/1, KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE
DOMMASANDRA POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.
1b. SRI. VENAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT: #102/1, KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE
DOMMASANDRA POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.
1c. SMT. PUTTAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
W/O SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
-2-
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
R/AT: #174, ALI BOMMASANDRA
MUTHANALLUR, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560099.
1d. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
W/O SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT: #23, CHICKATHIMMASANDRA
MUTHANALLUR, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560099.
1e. SMT. VINODAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
W/O SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT: #102/1, KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE
DOMMASANDRA POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.
2. SMT. THAYMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE,
BEGURU HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560068
3. SRI. VENKATESH REDDY
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560099
4. SRI. S KRISHNA REDDY
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560099
-3-
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
5. SRI. S RAVI
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560099
6. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560099
7. SRI. S SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560099
8. SRI. S NANJUNDA REDDY
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560099
9. SRI. C KUMAR
S/O CHINNAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560099
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH B N, ADVOCATE)
-4-
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-II
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560001
3. THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK-562106
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
4. SRI. K M RAJU
S/O MADDANAGIRIYAIAH,
@ MADANAGIRIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.156, 2ND CROSS,
BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068
5. SRI. M NAGARAJU
S/O MADDANAGIRIYAIAH,
@ MADANAGIRIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.156, 2ND CROSS,
BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068
6. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
DOMMASANDRA POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125
-5-
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
7. SRI. A S NAGARAJU
S/O SUBBEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT ATTILAHALLI VILLAGE,
HETHOOR HOBLI,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
8. SRI SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O G PAPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT GOPASANDRA VILLAGE,
MUTHANALUR POST,
SARJPAURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562106
9. SRI SHIVARAM REDDY
S/O G PAPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT GOPASANDRA VILLAGE,
MUTHANALLUR POST,
SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562106
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SREEVATSA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. R.V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R5
SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
R6 TO R9 D/W V/O DTD. 28.02.2022)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 10.02.2022 PASSED BY THE R-2 /
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RRT(2) (A) CR-16/2021-
22 (PRODUCED AT ANNX-A) AND ETC.
-6-
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
IN W. P. NO. 4510/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. A S NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O SUBBEGOWDA,
R/AT NO.102, AMBRIANCE DRIVE
BURR RIDGE, I.L.60527, U.S.A.
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER
H.M. TULASI PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O H.S. MALLEGOWDA
R/AT NO.568, 2ND CROSS
MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR
SAKALESHPURA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
2. THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK-562106
ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL-562107.
3. K M RAJU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O MADDANAGIRIYAIAH,
@ MADANAGIRIYAIAH,
R/AT NO.156, 2ND CROSS,
BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068
4. SRI. K. M. NAGARAJ
S/O MADDAGIRIAYYAH,
@ MADANAGIRIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.156, 2ND CROSS,
-7-
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SREEVATSA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. R.V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R5
SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
R6 TO R9 D/W V/O DTD. 28.02.2022)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 10.02.2022 PASSED BY THE R-2 /
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RRT(2) (A) CR-16/2021-
22 (PRODUCED AT ANNX-A) AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO. 8228/2022
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAMA REDDY
S/O LATE PAPA REDDY
AGED 58 YEARS,
R/A. GOPASANDRA VILLAGE
MUTHANALLUR POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-562106.
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
-8-
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-II
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560009
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009
4. THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK-562106
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
5. SRI. K M RAJU
S/O MADDANAGIRIYAIAH,
@ MADANAGIRIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.156, 2ND CROSS,
BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068
6. SRI. M NAGARAJU
S/O MADDANAGIRIYAIAH,
@ MADANAGIRIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.156, 2ND CROSS,
BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068
7. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
DOMMASANDRA POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125
8. SRI. A S NAGARAJU
-9-
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
S/O SUBBEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT ATTILAHALLI VILLAGE,
HETHOOR HOBLI,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
9. SRI SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O G PAPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT GOPASANDRA VILLAGE,
MUTHANALUR POST,
SARJPAURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562106
10. SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA
SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRS
10a. SMT. PAPAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS
10b. SRI. VENAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT: #102/1,
KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE
DOMMASANDRA POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.
[[
10c. SMT. PUTTAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
W/O SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT: #174, ALI BOMMASANDRA
MUTHANALLUR, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560099.
- 10 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
10d. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT: #23, CHIKKATHIMMASANDRA
MUTHANALLUR, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560099.
10e. SMT. VINODAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT: #102/1, KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE
DOMMASANDRA POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.
11. SMT. THAYMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE,
BEGURU HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560068
12. SRI. VENKATESH REDDY
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
13. SRI. S KRISHNA REDDY
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
14. SRI. S. RAVI
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
15. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
16. SRI. S. SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
17. SRI. S NANJUNDA REDDY
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
- 11 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560099
18. SRI. C KUMAR
S/O CHINNAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 18
ARE R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE & POST,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560099
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SREEVATSA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. R.V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5, R6 & R8
SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2022 PASSED BY THE
R2/SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WHICH IS PRODUCED
AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The writ petitioners in all these petitions are aggrieved by a common order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bengaluru South Sub-Division,
- 12 -WP No. 4506 of 2022
C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 Bengaluru District, Bengaluru in case No.RRT (2)(A) CR-
16/2021-22 dated 10.02.2022.
2. The contesting respondents Sri K.M.Raju and M.Nagaraju, initially approached the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(A) No.489/2021 invoking the appeal provision provided under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) challenging the revenue entries made in M.R.Nos.7/1957-58, 3/1965-66 etc., in respect of 4 acres 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.79 regarding M.R.No.5/2003-04 etc., and in respect of Sy.No.49 measuring 18 acres 14 guntas. However, before the Assistant Commissioner could pass any orders, the contesting respondents approached the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bengaluru District, in RRT No.(2) (A) CR-16/2021-22, seeking suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act, to conduct an enquiry regarding the genuinity of the mutation entries and also for cancellation of various sale deeds in respect of the said lands.
- 13 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
3. Learned Counsels for the petitioners in all these writ petitions have vehemently contended that on the face of it, it is clear that the appeal provisions contained in Section 136(2) or the revisional powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act, could not have been invoked by the authorities to set aside a revenue entry which has stood in the records for many decades.
4. Learned Counsels would submit that it is the contention of the contesting respondents that they claim through one Sri V.Shivaramaiah who is said to have been granted 22 acres and 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.49 and Sy.No.79 of Kagalipura Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and since then, the original grantee and thereafter the contesting Respondents herein have been in continuous possession of the granted lands. However, the learned Counsels would submit that admittedly neither the name of the original grantee nor his successors were entered in the land revenue records. On the other hand, the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question having acquired the same under
- 14 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 registered sale deeds. The original transaction to which the petitioners trace their title commenced on 15.10.1910. Therefore, having regard to the provisions contained under Section 128 of the Act, the purchasers have got their names entered in the land revenue records on the strength of the registered instruments. That being the position, neither the contesting respondents could have moved the revenue authorities to set aside mutation entries which have stood in the records for decades together on the strength of registered instruments and neither could the revenue authorities initiate such proceedings even under the suo motu powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Sreevatsa appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that it is clear from the first document of the year 1910 that the seller has clearly stated in the recitals of the sale deed that he had not acquired title over the land in question and it was only an assurance given to the seller to the purchaser that they may get their names entered in
- 15 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 the land revenue records and the seller would ensure that grant is made in their favour. In other words, learned Senior Counsel seeks to contend that when the original seller himself did not have any right to dispose of the properties, no right would flow to the purchasers under the registered sale deeds. Moreover, it is sought to be contended that the contesting Respondents have been in possession and their possession was never disturbed even by the petitioners since the petitioners never established their right over the lands in question by putting up any construction on the lands or getting the phodi and durasth done consequent to the registered instruments and entered all their names in the revenue records. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit while taking this Court through the RTCs that the name of the Government is shown in Column No.6 and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has given a finding that the lands being Government lands, it is within the powers of the revenue authorities to delete the names of unauthorized persons from the RTCs.
- 16 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022
6. Having heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents, learned AGA and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the petitioners are challenging the authority of the Special Deputy Commissioner in passing the impugned order invoking Section 136(3) of the Act. This Court has noticed in several decisions that a period of 60 days is provided under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act, to challenge an entry made in the land revenue records. Similarly, this Court has also held that the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to invoke suo motu powers invoking sub-section (3) of Section 136 also requires to be done within a reasonable time. In fact, this Court has held that in many such cases where action is sought to be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 136(3) of the Act, stating that the land belongs to the Government, that unless there is an appeal filed by the State Government invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioners should not venture to invoke the suo motu
- 17 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 powers. This Court has held that the revenue authorities are not custodians of the Government lands. Government lands belong to the State and the revenue authorities functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, are only custodians of the revenue records and not the Government lands. Therefore, it was held that even if the State is of the opinion that there has been encroachment on Government lands or the names of unauthorized persons have been entered in the land revenue records in respect of Government lands, then the Government viz., Secretary to Revenue Department is required to move an appeal or revision to get the mutation entries removed from the land revenue records. Unless and until such requisition or appeal is filed by the concerned Government official, the revenue authorities should not venture to invoke the suo motu powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act.
7. In the present case, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner at the instance of the contesting
- 18 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 respondents herein. It is the contention of the contesting respondents that they are the owners of the lands in question. However, in order to substantiate their contention that the contesting respondents are the owners, they are unable to produce any document whereby the revenue authorities have recognized the contesting respondents as owners of the land and their names being entered in the land revenue records. Ultimately, in these litigations, it is the title dispute that is the real dispute and therefore, time and again this Court has held that the aggrieved parties are required to approach the competent Civil Court, get a declaration of their title and the revenue entries would automatically follow. During the course of these proceedings, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents also drew the attention of this Court to Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, to contend that there is a legal presumption provided in Section 5(3) of the Act, stating that it shall be
- 19 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 presumed by the authority that any person in possession of a granted land viz., lands granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community shall be presumed to be in possession without authority of law. It shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved that such person has acquired the land by transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Nevertheless, if the contesting respondents are of the opinion that the petitioners can be evicted by invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act, the contesting respondents are free to invoke the provisions in accordance with law.
8. Having regard to all these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 136(3) of the Act, cannot be sustained. The revenue entries commencing from M.R.No.7/1957-58 till the latest i.e., M.R.No.3/2019-20 and M.R.No.T2/2021-22 have stood on record on the strength of registered instruments. These entries have been made in the land records in accordance with the powers conferred under Section 128 of the Act.
- 20 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 Therefore, the same cannot be interfered by the Special Deputy Commissioner at the instance of the contesting respondents or of the State Government without following the due process of law. Needless to observe that this Court is concerned only with the revenue entries made in the land revenue records since the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is regarding the revenue entries. This Court has said nothing about the possession of the lands in question or the title. It is for the aggrieved party to approach the competent Civil Court, get a declaration of title and accordingly the land revenue entries shall follow.
9. The Assistant Commissioner is said to have passed an order in R.A.(A): 489/2021 on 13.12.2021 subsequent to the filing of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents sought for leave of this Court to contest the matter challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner
- 21 -
WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Act.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the observations made hereinabove, it would be a futile exercise to allow the contesting respondents to once again invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act.
11. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bengaluru South Sub- Division, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, in proceeding bearing No.RRT No.(2) (A) CR-16/2021-22 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-
CT:JL