IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.8384 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN Mr. ALEEMULLA KHAN @ MUSHTAQ PASHA SON OF LATE Mr C.M.ABDUL SATTAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT KHAN VILLA, NO.10 LENOARD LANE, RICHMOND TOWN BENGALURU – 560 025 ... PETITIONER (By Sri.GANAPATI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ROOM NO.505 & 506, 5TH FLOOR GATE NO.III, M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER SURVEY, SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri DINESH RAO, AAG ALONG WITH Sri VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 28.12.2018 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner herein is impugning the notice dated 28.12.2018 in proceedings bearing No.SSLR/SUOMOTO/REV-03/2018-19, vide Annexure -
A. Admittedly, the said notice is issued by the Commissioner for Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Bengaluru, 2nd respondent herein.
2. The material on record would indicate that the notice impugned is issued by the 2nd respondent in exercise of suo moto powers under Sections 25 and 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by registering certain complaints received from private parties as Revision Petition. The records would further indicate that the petitioner is owner of land bearing Sy.No.56 measuring 22 acres 10 guntas including 3 acres 07 guntas kharab situated at Vaderahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner has already got the aforesaid land converted from agriculture to non agricultural purpose vide Official Memorandum bearing No.ALN(EBB)SR-193/2011-12, dated 17.10.2012. The said land which was converted was also permitted to be used for developing Golf Course and construction of Guest House. However, it is stated that, when the aforesaid land was converted, the kharab shown to said land is left vacant as it is situated in the middle of the property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner would state that the aforesaid kharab land was shown as ‘C’ kharab without classifying it either under ‘A’ kharab or ‘B’ kharab. In this background, it is stated that he approached the authorities seeking classification of the same which was in proceedings bearing No.Ji.Tam.Sa/Bhu.U.Ni/Tiddupadi 339/2014- 15.
4. The aforesaid proceedings initiated before the Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and Ex-Officio Deputy Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District, came to be disposed of by order dated 18.10.2014 in reclassifying the entire extent shown in ‘C’ kharab as ‘B’ kharab. Against this order, it is stated that the petitioner has preferred revision petition in proceedings bearing No.Bhumapana/Revision 20/2014-15 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, which was allowed by order dated 6.8.2015, wherein the Deputy Commissioner referred the matter to the Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and Ex-Officio Deputy Director of Land Records, Bengaluru for fresh consideration.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 18.9.2015 to the said authority seeking classification of Kharab land as per the order dated 6.8.2015. Pursuant to said order dated 6.8.2015, the Joint Director of Land Records, office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District took up the same in proceedings bearing No.Bhu.Jam.Ni/Tiddupadi: 148/2015-16. In the said proceedings, he has reclassified 2 acres 10 guntas as ‘A’ kharab and 37 guntas as ‘B’ kharab in Sy.No.56 which were earlier together shown as ‘C’ kharab. Accordingly, he has passed the order dated 07.01.2016 and directed the Assistant Director, Land Survey, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division, Bengaluru to correct the revenue entries.
6. It is stated that subsequently the Deputy Commissioner in accepting the reclassification made by the Joint Director of Land Records in his order dated 07.01.2016 has passed the order of conversion with reference to the lands reclassified as ‘A’ kharab in Sy.No.56 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas after regularizing the said extent of land as cultivable land and after collecting the market value of the property as well as conversion charges totally amounting to Rs.1,52,42,095/-.
7. When matter stood thus, it is stated that certain complaints are filed by third parties contending that serious lapses are committed in the process of reclassification of kharab land as well as while considering the reclassification under ‘A’ kharab, in recognizing the same as cultivable land by collecting the value of said land and thereafter, issuing order of conversion to the said land by the Deputy Commissioner. It is in entertaining the said private complaints proceedings No.SSLR/SUOMOTO/REV- 03/2018-19 is initiated. The notice issued in the said proceedings is under challenge in this proceedings on the ground that; firstly there is no basis for filing of such complaints by the third parties; secondly the orders for reclassification being accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, who is of the equal rank of 2nd respondent; the order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records in reclassifying the lands in question after conducting an enquiry, which is accepted by the Deputy Commissioner who has passed orders for conversion of lands in question as having reached finality, it is not open for the 2nd respondent herein, an officer of the equal rank to suo moto enquire into the same once again.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the material available on record. On going through the same it is clearly seen that the petitioner owns 22 acres 10 guntas of land, wherein the total extent of kharab which is traceable to said land belonging to petitioner is 3 acres 07 guntas. It is the said kharab land which was initially shown under ‘C’ Kharab i.e., without identifying whether it is ‘A’ kharab or ‘B’ kharab. It is to ascertain the nature of kharab, the proceedings was initiated by the petitioner which was considered by the competent authority in its order in notifying that all the lands are ‘B’ kharab lands.
9. The petitioner not being satisfied with the same approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing Revision against the order of the competent authority, where the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his revisional powers has allowed the revision and ordered for necessary correction in revenue records after conducting enquiry. Subsequently, the Joint Director of Land Records after reconsidering the matter has passed appropriate orders in proceedings bearing No.Bhu.Jam.Ni/Tiddupadi: 148/2015-16, dated 07.01.2016 vide Annexure-G, which is subsequently accepted by the Deputy Commissioner and in accepting the reclassification reduced the said ‘A’ kharab land to ain land has issued conversion order. When that being so, on the basis of complaints filed by third parties the 2nd respondent should not have initiated proceedings under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, more particularly when such power is already exercised by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, who is of equal rank to him. In that view of the matter, the notice is sought to be quashed.
10. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate tried to assert that in the light of the complaints which are raised, the 2nd respondent herein has rightly taken up the responsibility of looking into the same once again and that, no harm would be caused to the petitioner in placing before the said authority all the material available with it to demonstrate that in fact an extent of 2 acres 10 guntas which is reclassified as ‘A’ kharab in the order of the Joint Director of Land Records and accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, is just and proper and does not call for verification.
11. In the meanwhile, the learned counsel for the petitioner would assert that the classification of kharab in the lands in question having reached finality, that since the usage of said lands is already changed from agriculture to non agricultural use to form Golf Course and to construct Guest House after collecting the value of the land in bringing the ‘A’ kharab to ain land and by receiving conversion charges, nothing survives for consideration by the 2nd respondent herein as against the order which is already passed by an officer of the equal rank.
12. After giving careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate it is seen that the order of Joint Director of Land Records clearly discloses the manner in which the reclassification is done in bringing 2 acres 10 guntas out of 3 acres 07 guntas from ‘C’ kharab to ‘A’ kharab, subsequently the said ‘A’ kharab land is regularized as arable land by collecting the value of the land which is to the tune of Rs.1,48,50,000/-. In addition to that it is also seen that the petitioner has paid conversion charges also to the said land.
13. When all these is looked into, this Court find that the complaint based on which the suo moto notice is issued, is without any basis inasmuch as prima facie no illegality is seen in the order of the Joint Director of Land Records in reclassifying the kharab land to cultivable land, subsequently the Deputy Commissioner in accepting the same has passed the conversion order of said lands from agriculture to non agricultural residential use, which has already been completed and reached finality. Hence, issuance of notice impugned in suo moto enquiry into the same is without authority, the same would not serve any purpose and it will be an exercise in futility which would cause unnecessary harm to the petitioner and that too against the complaint of third parties who do not have any right, title or interest in the matter.
14. The further allegation that there is loss to the Government to the tune of 50 to 60 crores is also without any basis. Even otherwise, when the value of the land as collected by the Government is looked into, it is seen that the notified market value of the property is collected by the Government in regularizing ‘A’ kharab as classified by the Joint Director of Land Records to ain land and the same also appears to be just and proper. In that view of the matter, the notice which is issued by the 2nd respondent for suo moto revision under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 does not survive for consideration inasmuch as the said exercise has already been done by the officer of the same rank at an earlier point of time and the same having reached finality.
15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
The notice impugned dated 28.12.2018 in proceedings bearing No.SSLR/SUOMOTO/REV-03/2018-19 is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cp/nd*