IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11086 OF 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SMT JENEVIVE FRANCIS, W/O LATE FRANCIS INMANVELA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A NO.47, 7TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 096. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDAN S RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH, ADDITIONAL TALUK, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064.
2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH AND NORTH ADDITIONAL (TALUK), BANGALORE – 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 22.09.2011 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-P TO THIS WP.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Chandan S Rao, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri Y D Harsha, learned AGA for the respondents.
2. Sri Chandan S.Rao, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s husband Francis Inmanvela purchased agricultural land bearing Sy.No.7/P8 of B K Palya, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, measuring 4 acres on 14.12.1984. Proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner for violation of Section 79-A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. By order dated 25.03.1997, the Assistant Commissioner directed that the land to be resumed by the Government. The said order was set aside by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the KAT’) in Appeal No.474/1998 on 07.02.2000.
3. On 24.12.2008 the Tahsildar requested the Deputy Commissioner to initiate appropriate proceedings on the ground that the land in question was gomal land. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order has held that there was no grant in favour of alleged original grantee, namely, Kenchamma and therefore sale in favour of petitioner’s husband is bad in law. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahasildar to rectify the revenue entries. Hence this writ petition.
4. Sri Chandan S Rao, learned advocate for the petitioner urged that petitioner’s name has been entered in the revenue records after verifying the documents as far as back in the year 1984. In the previous round of litigation the KAT has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner alleging violation of provisions of Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. He urged two grounds in support of this petition. Firstly, that there is enormous delay in initiating proceedings. Secondly that the respondents have accepted the documents submitted by the petitioner’s husband and entered his name in the revenue records.
5. Learned AGA has argued supporting the impugned order.
6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
7. The copy of the document annexed to this petition as Annexure ‘F’ is the record of right for the year 1983-84. It contains the name of one Charlette Abraham, the previous owner of the property. The copies of the documents annexed as Annexures H to K show the name of petitioner’s husband as the owner of the land from 1985- 2011. In the impugned order, a report containing opinion of Special Deputy Commissioner that the grant register seems to have been built up afresh has been noted. The Special Deputy Commissioner has opined that register does not contain case numbers in chronological order. He has stated that Sl.No.12 pertains to appeal Number GD 60/59- 60 whereas Sl.No.13 pertains to GKD 39/53-54. Based on the said report of Special Deputy Commissioner and other reasons recorded in the impugned order, the Deputy commissioner has come to the conclusion that there was no grant in the name of Kenchamma.
8. Admittedly, petitioner’s predecessors name is found in the revenue records from 1983. The revenue department has also issued Patta as per Annexure ‘E’. The record of rights for the year 2011-12 also contains the name of petitioner’s husband. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the orders by placing reliance on the report of the Tahsildar and the Special Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement). The order has resulted in deprivation of land. Therefore, the order passed on the basis of Tahsildar’s report without verification of the grant certificate and other revenue records by the second respondent is unsustainable.
9. In the result, the petition merits consideration and hence the following order.
ORDER The writ petition is allowed. Order dated 22.09.2011 (Annexure P) is set aside. Matter is remitted to the second respondent for reconsideration in accordance with law in an outer limit of six months. The petitioner shall be permitted to place his documents, if any, before the Deputy Commissioner, which shall be examined and an opportunity of hearing shall be given to him before passing any order. Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl