IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NOs.27908/2019 & 28941-28947/2019(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1 . SHRI. GEORGE T RAMAPURAM S/O LATE THOMAS E RAMAPURAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS CHIKKANAHALLI ESTATE, SIDDAPURA COORG, KARNATAKA PRESENTLY R/AT APARTMENT NO.123 RANKA VIEW, RATNA AVENUE, 51/22 RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE – 560 025.
2 . SHRI. ABE T RAMAPURAM S/O LATE THOMAS E RAMAPURAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO.G.101, RANKA VIEW RATHNA AVENUE, 51 RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE – 560 025.
3 . SHRI. CHERIAN T RAMAPURAM S/O LATE THOMAS E RAMAPURAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS G1. SKYLINE MANOR, BRIDE STREET LONGFORD TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 025 PRESENTLT R/AT APARTMENT NO.124 RANKA VIEW, RATNA AVENUE, 51/22 RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE – 560 025.
4 . SHRI. JOHN T RAMAPURAM S/O LATE THOMAS E RAMAPURAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RAMAPURAM HOUSE, NAGORI MANGALORE – 575 002.
5 . SHRI. THOMAS T RAMAPURAM S/O LATE THOMAS E RAMAPURAM AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RAMAPURAM HOUSE ST. THOMAS ROAD KURIACHIRA, THIRASUR – 680 652.
6 . SHRI. EMANUEL T RAMAPURAM S/O LATE THOMAS E RAMAPURAM AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS CHIKKENAHALLI ESTATE POST BOX NO. SIDDAPUR COORGE – 571 253.
7 . SMT. SUNITHA PRABHU W/O PRABHU J AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.288, 38TH CROSS 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 025.
8 . SRI. JOSE T RAMAPURAM S/O LATE THOMAS E RAMAPURAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI ESTATE SIDDAPURA, KODAGU DISTRICT PRESENTLY R/AT APARTMENT NO.122 RANKA VIEW, RATNA AVENUE 51/22 RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.S.PONNANNA, SR. COUNSEL A/W SMT. LEELA P DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-II BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 043.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:25.06.2019 PASSED BY THE R-3 A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for orders, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioners have sought for quashing of order dated 25.06.2019 (Annexure-A) passed by third respondent holding that Saguvali chit dated 01.06.1946 produced by the petitioners and documents produced by the petitioners are the photo copies and there is cloud or doubt over the documents produced by the petitioners. It was also noticed by third respondent that entries in the revenue records would primafacie indicate there has been insertion of names and as such, claim of petitioners over the lands in question is liable to be set aside and the land has to be resumed to the Government by entering the name of Government in the revenue records.
3. Lands bearing Sy.Nos.86/3, 86/4, 86/5, 86/8, 86/9 and 86/10 measuring 41 acres situated at Kumbalgodu village, Bangalore Rural District were said to have been sold by way of public auction in favour of Sri V S Shastry on 25.04.1945, pursuant to which, Saguvali chit dated 01.06.1946 (Annexure-B) came to be issued in his favour. Auction purchaser Sri V.S.Shastry sold the land in favour of one Sri F.J.Punitha under a registered sale deed dated 16.07.1952 . On account of non-payment of revenue to the Government, said property was brought for sale and in the auction held on 25.06.1959, Ms.J.P.Punitha purchased the property in the public auction which was held for recovery of arrears of land revenue. On 04.01.1964 said Ms.J.P.Punitha sold the lands in favour of one K.S.Gowder and Company under registered sale deed dated 04.01.1964. Revenue records came to be mutated in the name of aforesaid persons in No.M.R.1/1963-64. Assistant Superintendent of Land Records issued new Sy.Nos. on 01.12.1969 and in respect of the lands in question, new Sy.Nos. commencing from 158 to 163 came to be assigned as evident from the endorsement dated 01.12.1969 (Annexure-E). Said K.S.Gowdar and Company sold the lands in favour of petitioners under a registered sale deeds dated 21.07.1998 prior to which, revenue records had been mutated in their names vide M.R.No.45/1993-94.
4. Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner alleging that there has been violation of Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 initiated proceedings against petitioners which came to be dropped after considering the reply submitted by petitioners on 26.06.2009 (Annexure-G). At that point of time, jurisdictional Special Deputy Commissioner has also intimated petitioners vide endorsement dated 21.03.2011 (Annexure-H) stating that no proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act’) was pending. However, on 11.04.2011 notices came to be issued to petitioners calling upon them to produce documents to establish their right over the lands by initiating proceedings under section 136(3) of the Act and second respondent by order dated 27.04.2012 (Annexure-J) in No.RRT(S)CR.222/2010-11 upheld the notices issued and ordered for resumption of land to the Government. Hence, petitioners approached this court in W.P.Nos. 16550-16555/2012 and by order dated 13.12.2012 (Annexure-M) this Court allowed said writ petitions and set aside the order dated 27.04.2012. It is thereafter, petitioners submitted representations to the authorities to mutate the revenue records in their names. On account of inaction of the authorities, petitioners initiated contempt proceedings in CCC No.1183/2014 and it was pointed out that revenue records has been mutated by entering name of the petitioner. In column No.11 of RTC extract, an entry was made that proposal had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act. On account of said entry made in revenue records, petitioners filed an appeal in R.A.(S)309/2014-15 before Assistant Commissioner, who by order dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure-Q) allowed the appeal by deleting the entry in column No.11. It is thereafter petitioners applied for conversion of land from agricultural to non- agricultural industrial use under Section 95 of the Act, which came to be considered favourably and by orders dated 21.02.2012 and 07.11.2017 (5 orders – Annexures-R to R5) granted conversion sought for by the petitioners. On account of the property in question having falling within the jurisdiction of Panchayat limits, it is stated that khata has been issued by assessing the property to tax under the Panchayat Raj Act as is evident from khata extracts – Annexures-S to S5. It is thereafter petitioners have been issued with notice dated 08.08.2018 whereunder they were called upon to produce documents with regard to grant of lands in question. Said show cause notice was an off shoot of report of Tahsildar dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure-U) which resulted in proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act in RRT/CR14/2014-15 being initiated against petitioners by third respondent, which ultimately resulted in impugned order dated 25.06.2019 (Annexure-A) being passed by third respondent despite reply filed by petitioners on 28.08.2018 (Annexure-V) and contentions raised in the reply came to be rejected. Hence, these writ petitions.
5. It is the contention of Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners that Deputy Commissioner has erred in proceeding to adjudicate the claim as though said land was a granted land which was factually incorrect and even after noticing that there was an auction proceedings held in respect of subject land in which proceedings, petitioners’ predecessor in title had purchased said land. He would also submit that reasons assigned in the impugned order is not part of the show cause notice issued to petitioners and new reasons having been assigned, same would not stand test of law. He would also submit that Tahsildar who has forwarded the report (Annexure-U) having not been furnished to the petitioners at the first instance also smacks of violation of principles of natural justice. Material which did not form part of show cause notice has been adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner by expressing opinion for which no notice was issued to petitioners. He would also submit that when similar proceedings were initiated earlier, petitioners had approached this court and cognate Bench had clearly held that petitioners’ title cannot be held to be imperfect and despite plea raised by the State to re-examine the issue, was not accepted and as such, matter was not remanded for fresh enquiry and only on account of liberty having reserved to respondents to initiate the proceedings, they have formed the view that Sri V S Shastry is not auction purchaser of land measuring 41 acres and present proceedings have been initiated not for said reason, but on the ground that there was no grant in favour of predecessor in title of petitioners i.e., Sri V S Shastry and proceeded on the footing that subject land was a grant made in favour of Sri V S Shastry, which is erroneous and contrary to records. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petitions.
6. Per contra, Sri R Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents would support the impugned order and contend that original records having been perused by the Deputy Commissioner, it was found there were insertions, additions and it contained hand writing in different inks, which clearly discloses that there was insertion of entries in the records and as such, proceedings had been initiated against petitioners to establish their title to the property in question. Hence, by reiterating the contentions raised in the statement of objections and grounds urged in support thereof, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
He would also submit that one of the reasons under which impugned order came to be passed is, on account of production of original records which petitioners have now produced before this court. He submits by way of alternate plea that in the event of this court arriving at a conclusion that impugned order is not sustainable on account of petitioners having produced photo copies, he prays for matter being remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for adjudication afresh, before which authority original records can be produced by petitioners which would enable said authority to ascertain the authenticity, correctness as well as genuineness of those documents which petitioners intend to rely upon. Hence, he prays for dismissal of writ petitions or in the alternate, suitable orders being passed.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and after bestowing my careful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar and on perusal of the entire case papers including statement of objections filed by respondents, it would clearly emerge there from that entire issue revolves around proceedings initiated against petitioners under Section 136(3) of the Act by doubting the genuineness of the documents of title relied upon by petitioners on suspicion and forfeiting the land to Government.
8. A plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act would clearly indicate that jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner either on a complaint/petition or suo motu would be empowered to call for any records made under Sections 127 & 129 of the Act and pass such orders thereon as he may deem fit and such power may be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner and there being no time limit within which such power can be exercised. However, it cannot be gainsaid by authorities that such power can be exercised for all times to come, though revenue authorities had knowledge about any such transaction which is subsequently sought to be looked into on the basis of suspicion. However, in case of authorities including Deputy Commissioner forming an opinion with regard to the documents being fraudulent, then, Section 25 of the Act would come to their aid which is inherent power of the revenue authorities. Thus, Deputy Commissioner being a revenue Court under Section 136(3) of the Act would have unlimited power or inherent power available to him under Section 25 and it can be exercised in circumstances of fraud being unearthed, so as to prevent the abuse of process of the revenue court and to secure ends of justice. Again, the question that would arise would be, when such power can be exercised?
9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SANTOSHKUMAR SHIVGONDA PATIL AND OTHERS vs BALASAHEB TUKARAM SHEVALE AND OTHERS reported in (2009)9 SCC 352. While examining Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 whereunder Tahsildar had exercised inherent/revisional power, which provision is almost analogous to Section 136(3) of the Act, held where no time limit prescribed under the Code for exercise of power under the statute and it should be exercised within a reasonable time and as to what would be a reasonable time has been held as three years. Apex Court has also held that there can be no hard and fast rule as to the time limit within which such power can be exercised. It should be exercised within a reasonable time and said reasonable time would depend on facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any straight jacket formula in this regard. However, it cannot extend beyond the period of three years. For said proposition, judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs PATIL RAGHAV NATHA AND OTHERS reported in 1969(2) SCC 187, MOHAMMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN vs FATMABAI IBRAHIM reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71, STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS vs BHATINDA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. reported in (2007)11 SCC 363, JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AND ANOTHER vs D NARSING RAO AND OTHERS reported in (2015)3 SCC 695 can be looked up.
10. Exercise of suo motu power or on an application “at any time” would only mean that no specific period is prescribed for reckoning a particular date as to the starting point of time for initiating proceedings. However, that does not mean that expression “at any time” should be unguided. It should be understood as to within reasonable time depending on facts that may be obtained. When there is no limitation prescribed for exercise of revisional power, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. This would also be applicable to cases where allegations of fraud are alleged and same has necessitated for exercise of corrective steps being taken and same would have to be determined having regard to the lapse of time and knowledge of such fraud or irregularity.
11. Keeping these principles in mind, when facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that consistently from the years 1952 to 1999, revenue records of subject land has been mutated by the very same revenue authorities as and when registered documents have come into existence. In fact, at the time of mutating the revenue records, title deeds of subject land which is purported to have been fabricated was also produced before revenue authorities. In other words, revenue authorities were fully conscious and aware of these records which were before them and yet they have proceeded to mutate the revenue records in favour of predecessor in title of petitioners without disputing the genuineness of said documents and after having initiated proceedings by issuing notice dated 11.04.2011 resulting in the order dated 27.04.2012 (Annexure-J) being passed by third respondent, which came to be set side by this Court on 13.12.2012 in W.P.Nos.16550-555/2012, yet, have restarted the proceedings only on account of the window having opened by following observations:
“10. For all the aforesaid reasons xxx enquiry. However, I reserve the liberty to the respondents to initiate the proceedings, if they form the view that Sri V.S.Shastry is not the auction-purchaser of the land measuring 41 acres. But if the proceedings are to be initiated, they have to be initiated in respect of all the recorded owners of the portions of the 41 acres of lands.”
(Emphasis supplied by me) It is this liberty which was granted to authorities by this court had resulted in third respondent initiating proceedings in RRT/CR-14/2014-15 by relying upon report of the Tahsildar dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure-U) whereunder he has reported that a cloud exists over the title of subject property.
12. Even if this court were to embark upon an enquiry as to the correctness and legality of contents/findings recorded in the impugned order, it would not stand the test of scrutiny for reasons more than one.
(i) Liberty granted by the cognate Bench to the authorities is to initiate proceedings only in the event of authorities arriving at a conclusion that “Sri V S Shastry was not the auction purchaser of land measuring 41 acres” but not on the ground of Saguvali chit purported or alleged to have been issued to Sri V S Shastry being doubtful. Under the impugned order, third respondent has proceeded on the footing that Saguvali chit issued to Sri V.S.Shastry on the basis of auction conducted is shrouded with mystery or doubtful. This exercise undertaken is contrary to the liberty granted by this court by order dated 13.12.2012 (Annexure-M).
(ii) Report which is purported to have been forwarded by Tahsildar dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure-U) referred to by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order was not made known to petitioners at all nor it was furnished to petitioners. As such, material which was not furnished to petitioners or made known by issuance of show cause notice cannot form the basis of forming an opinion based on said report.
(iii) Original documents said to have not been produced before third respondent is an argument which cannot be accepted for the simple reason that even in the earlier round of litigation, petitioners have made available said documents. It was their specific case that even when original documents came to be tendered by them before Deputy Commissioner, they were refused to be looked into by the Deputy Commissioner. In fact, it was the specific contention raised by learned Advocate appearing for petitioners in the earlier round of litigation, which can be traced in Annexure-M wherein it came to be urged by the petitioners to the following effect:
“3. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have produced the original order evidencing the auction purchase by Sri V.S.Shastry. The Deputy Commissioner refused to take it on record. The Deputy Commissioner has gone about the whole thing, as if it is a granted land.”
This would clearly indicate that consistently petitioners have been canvassing, contending, pleading and urging before third respondent that land in question is not a granted land, but it is a land purchased by petitioners’ predecessor in title i.e. Sri V S Shastry in an auction held. At this juncture itself, if the original grant certificate which is at Annexure-B is perused, it would clearly indicate that Government land has been disposed of in favour of Sri V S Shastry in an open public auction conducted by Government. In fact, bid - price for the auction has also been collected as evident from the receipts which were made available during the course of hearing by Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners and same has been examined and perused by this court and copies of which are available on record at Annexure-D, would also substantiate claim made by the petitioners in this regard and as such, contention raised by respondents with regard to original documents can be permitted to be tendered by petitioners before third respondent for re-examining the same afresh is an argument which requires to be considered for the purpose of outright rejection howsoever it may be attractive.
13. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) Order dated 25.06.2019 passed by third respondent in RRT/CR-14/2014-15 (Annexure-A) is quashed.
(iii) It is needless to state that in the light of impugned order having been quashed, respondent – authorities shall take immediate steps to restore mutation entries of subject land to the name of respective petitioners forthwith.
In view of disposal of writ petitions, I.A.1/2019 for direction does not survive for consideration and it stands dismissed.
*sp SD/- JUDGE