IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.38988/2010(KLR-RES) AND WRIT PETITION No.39654/2010(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT BYRAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKA MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs) 1(a) SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O SHIVANNA, MAJOR, DOOR NO.1433, BEHIND VIDYAPEETA, IJOOR POST, RAMANAGARA.
1(b) SMT. PUTTAGOWRAMMA, W/O SHRI CHUNCHAIAH, MAJOR, GANAKAL POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA.
2 . SHRI CHIKKALAKKAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKA MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3 . SHRI A C JAYASWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKA MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT ABBUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI: PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,BANGALORE-01 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4 . THE TAHSILDAR CHANNAPATNA TALUK CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
5 . SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUNIAYYA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs 5(a) SMT. MUDDAMMA W/O SHRI PUTTASWAMY, D/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BOOVAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
5(b) SHRI M. MANJUNATH S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 15, 8TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, NEAR SHANESHWARA TEMPLE, PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT, MOODALAPALYA, BENGALURU NORTH, NAGARABAVI, BENGALURU-560072.
5(c) SHRI M.GANGADHARA, S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT ABBUR VILLAGE & POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1-R4 SRI: GURUSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A-C) ABSENT) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DATED 20.10.2010 IN CASE NO. REVISION PETITION 200/2007-08, AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Shri Prakash K. Hebbar, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that as per the proceedings dated 29.04.1963 in case No.43/1959-60, the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru granted occupancy rights of the following lands:-
in favour of Chikka Muddaiah, S/o. Muddaiah. His name was entered in the revenue records and it continued till 2000-2001. During the said period, digital records were introduced and the name of Chikka Muddaiah was not found in the subsequent revenue records. Accordingly, he submitted a representation to the Tahsildhar to enter his name in the digital records. As per the orders passed by the Tahsildhar bearing No.1077/03-04 dated 11.12.2003 in M.R.No.17/2003-2004 and No.1293/03-04 dated 22.01.2004 in M.R.No.46/2003-2004, Chikka Muddaiah’s name was entered in respect of the following lands:-
M.R.No.17/2003-2004 (Annexure-G) Sy.No.4/2 - 1 acre 11 guntas Kharab 0.03 guntas Total 1 acre 14 guntas M.R.No.46/2003-2004 (Annexure-H) Sy.No.28/1 0.10 guntas Sy.No.29/2 0.13 guntas Sy.No.317/6 0.32 guntas Sy.No.374/4 0.2 guntas The above entries were challenged in an appeal filed by respondent No.5 before the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara in proceedings No.RA.(LKP).165:2006-2007. By his order dated 28.01.2008, the Assistant Commissioner, dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.5 challenged Assistant Commissioner’s order before the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara in Revision petition No.200/2007-08. By the impugned order dated 20.10.2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara, has allowed the revision petition and set-aside the revenue entries made in favour of Chikka Muddaiah. Hence, these writ petitions.
2. Shri Hebbar contended that the lands were granted under the provisions of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner could not have gone into the veracity of the grant.
3. Placing reliance on the decision in RANGANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1981 (1) (SHORT NOTES 43) Shri Hebbar submitted that once the land vest in the Government, under one Act, question of its resumption under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 does not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara is unsustainable.
4. This position of law is not disputed by learned Addl. Government Advocate.
5. Though served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.5.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the records.
7. Annexure-C5 is the grant order, whereunder the aforesaid lands have been granted in favour of Chikka Muddaiah by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru. Annexure-E series are the Records of Rights from the year 1988-1989. Annexure-E10 is the RTC for the year 2000-2001 which shows Chikka Muddaiah’s name in column No.9 as also column No.12. Mutation extracts in ‘G’ series have been effected pursuant to the orders passed by the Tahsildhar recorded hereinabove.
8. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara has allowed the revision petition by recording that the issue as to whether the lands were belonging to Vyasaraya Mutt or Thoti Inam has not been resolved. In such circumstances, the Tahsildhar has held that the land in question are Thoti Inam lands. Having so recorded, the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara has set-aside the mutation made in favour of the Chikka Muddaiah.
9. As recorded hereinabove, the grant made by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru in his proceedings dated 29th April 1963 has not been discussed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara. No material is placed to show that the said grant has been set- aside. Further, the Records of Rights in ‘E’ series shows the name of Chikka Muddaiah in column No.9 and 12 continuously. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara setting aside the mutation made in favour of Chikka Muddaiah on the grounds mentioned hereinabove is unsustainable. Without there being any challenge to the original grant, the Deputy Commissioner in a collateral proceeding cannot undo the grant made in the year 1963 after lapse of nearly 47 years. Resultantly, these petitions merit consideration.
Hence, the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 20.10.2010 passed in Revision Petition No.200/2007-08 (Annexure-A) by Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara is set-aside.
(ii) The revenue records in the name of the Chikka Muddaiah in respect of the lands mentioned above is restored.
The petitions are disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-