IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.15909/2012 (KLR, RR/SUR) C/W.
WRIT PETITION NOS.5488/2012 AND 3201/2012 IN W.P.NO.15909/2012 BETWEEN:
M.NARAYANAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRs., 1(a) SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O.LATE M.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 1(b) SRI.N.RAMESH S/O.LATE M.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 1(c) SRI.G.N.VIJAYKUMAR S/O.LATE M.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1(a) to 1(c) ARE RESIDING AT:GEDDALAPURA DHAKALE TARABAHALLI VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 1(d) SMT.SUSHEELAMMA D/O.LATE M.NARAYANAPPA W/O.RAMANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT.DODDASARAHALLI VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
1(e) SMT.SUNANDAMMA D/O.LATE M.NARAYANAPPA W/O.RAMANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT.BAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAGATTIGANABBI POST JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. (BY SRI K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PODIUM BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE.
…PETITIONERS 4. SMT.MUNITHAYAMMA S/O.LATE MUNIRAMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5. PATALAPPA S/O.LATE MUNIRAMANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 6. SMT.PATALAMMA D/O.LATE MUNIRAMANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 7. SRI.CHIKKAPATALAPPA S/O.LATE MUNIRAMANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING MAKANAHALLI VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 560 067.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3, SRI.A.G.SHIVANNA, ADV., FOR R-4 TO R-7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN REVISION PETITION NO.101/2010-11 DATED 13.01.2012 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER LAND IS CONCERNED BEARING SY.NO.23/P12 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 2 ACRES 5 GUNTAS SITUATED AT TARABAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN W.P.NO.5488/2012 BETWEEN:
ANNAMMA W/O.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT.TARABAHALLI VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 01 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PODIUM BLOCK BANGALORE-01.
3. THE TAHSILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE – 562 114.
(BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN REVISION PETITION NO.101/2010-11 DATED 13.1.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN W.P.NO.3201/2012 BETWEEN:
1. SRI.VENKATASWAMY S/O.LATE KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. SMT.MUNITHAYAMMA D/O.LATE KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SMT.SARASWATHAMMA D/O.LATE KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O.LATE KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 5. SMT.ANUSUYAMMA D/O.LATE KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 6. RAJAGOPAL S/O.LATE KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 7. SMT.MANJULA D/O.LATE KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAKANAHALLI VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISRTICT.
(BY SRI K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE …PETITIONERS AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PODIUM BLOCK BANGALORE-01.
3. THE TAHSILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE.
(BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN REVISION PETITION NO.101/2010-11 DATED 13.1.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners are claiming to be the grantees of the land bearing Sy.Nos.23/P12, 55/P1, 23/P11 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas, 1 acre 18 guntas and 1 acre respectively, situated at Tarabahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Said lands having been acquired by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, petitioners claim to have handed over the original documents of the properties to the said Authority along with application for grant of compensation. Petitioners claim that revenue records had not been mutated for certain period, which resulted in the Deputy Commissioner initiating suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and issued show cause notice to the petitioners calling upon them to produce original documents to substantiate their title to the properties. Since said lands were claimed by the petitioners to have been granted lands, Deputy Commissioner by impugned order dated 13.01.2012, has arrived at a conclusion that insofar as petitioners are concerned, they are not able to demonstrate proof of their title as well as the original registers maintained for grant of lands are not depicting the names of petitioners, evidencing their title and as such, has ordered for revenue entries being made in the name of Government by cancelling the existing entries, if any. Hence, petitioners are before this Court.
2. It is contention of Sri.Shivashankar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that second respondent without considering or examining the documents placed before him in proper perspective has passed the impugned order in a perfunctory manner and that too, ignoring the grant certificate and other documents relied upon by petitioners and he did not even undertake the exercise of summoning the original records from the jurisdictional Authorities to ascertain whether such grant had been made in favour of petitioners or not and thereby, impugned order came to be passed rejecting claim of petitioners and thereby it had resulted in rights of the petitioners being prejudiced. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the writ petitions.
3. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has made available the original records to support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of entire original records produced before the Court by the learned AGA and same having examined by this Court, I am of the considered view that insofar as claim made by the petitioners in W.P.No.15909/2012 and W.P.No.5488/2012, matters deserve to be remitted back to the second respondent and claim of petitioners made in W.P.No.3201/2012, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons indicated herein below.
RE: W.P.No.15909/2012 5. Petitioners herein claim to have been granted the land measuring 2 acres 5 guntas on 30.01.1999 by revenue authorities by issuing Saguvali Chit. However, even prior to issuance of Saguvali Chit, land in question had been acquired by KIADB by issuing notification dated 25.06.1998 and this fact creates cloud over the title of the petitioners claim. However, that by itself is not a ground on which claim of petitioners could have been rejected for mutating the revenue records, as a consequence of which, the petitioners are being deprived of their right to pursue their claim for grant of compensation. Infact, original register relating to grant of land by the Committee which has been made available, has been perused by this court. At page 59 of the said register, in the proceedings of the Land Grant Committee, it has been recorded that application filed by the petitioners for grant of said land has been considered, by taking note of the fact that petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said land from long number of years. However, fact remains that said resolution of the Land Grant Committee came to be passed subsequent to the notification issued by KIADB on 25.06.1998. Though the correctness and legality of the resolution is not required to go into by this Court, fact remains that said Committee seems to have considered the application of the petitioners for grant of land. In other words, a presumption would arise that application was pending before the said Committee, even much prior to acquisition proceedings came to be commenced. The original records relating to the grant of land which has been made available also contain spot inspection report as well as mahazar drawn, which action are all subsequent to the issuance of the notification for acquisition by KIADB. Though petitioners have heavily relied upon grant of land, they have not demonstrated before this Court that at an undisputed point of time, they were in possession and enjoyment of the land and were in occupation of it by cultivating the same and as such, they had sought for grant of said land. This is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. As such, it is apt and appropriate to remit the matter back to the second respondent for adjudication afresh by reserving liberty to the petitioners to place all such materials to establish before Deputy Commissioner that even prior to grant order came to be passed, they were in possession and enjoyment of the same and their claim got blossomed into grant incidentally after acquisition proceedings had commenced. In the event of such material being placed, second respondent shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass suitable orders thereon without being prejudiced by earlier order of rejection and also keeping in mind observation made hereinabove.
RE:W.P.No.5488/2012 6. Petitioner who claims to be the grantee of the land bearing Sy.No.55/P1 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas has relied upon the grant order made in the year 1971-72 and Darakast register has been produced by the petitioner along with writ petition as per Annexure-‘B’. Thus, prima facie material placed on record would disclose that a grant has been made in favour of petitioner. The genuineness of the said document has been doubted by the second respondent on the ground that original register has not been placed on record before the said Authority. Petitioner also claims to have produced the certified extract before the KIADB Authority. As to whether said grant by way of Darakast of which petitioner claims to be genuine, is an issue which will have to be examined and adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner, as such, in order to ensure that there is compliance of substantial justice, matter deserves to be remitted back to the second respondent for being adjudicated afresh and disposed of in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made in this order and without being influenced by earlier order. Petitioner is also at liberty to place all such material in support of her claim before second respondent – Authority.
RE:W.P.No.3201/2012 7. Petitioners herein claim to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.23/P11 measuring 1 acre by virtue of grant made in the year 1992-93. This Court as already observed herein above had called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to make available the original register relating to such grant and same has been made available. On a plain reading from naked eye, it would clearly disclose that entries found at Page Nos.132-133 is a subsequent entry or added. It neither contains the survey number nor the seal affixed by the signatory who made the entry. Even the Minutes of Meeting, under which petitioner claims that the land was granted at page No.219 would also disclose is a subsequent entry which seems to have been made since there is over writing in the original register and this itself create a doubt with regard to claim of the petitioner. It is because of these reasons, learned Deputy Commissioner under the impugned order has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner by arriving at a conclusion that there is no conclusive proof of evidence to arrive at a conclusion that land in question has been in possession of petitioners predecessor in title. Said fact recorded by the learned Deputy Commissioner does not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or in law, since it is based on sound appreciation of facts and based on scrutiny of entire original records. Hence, calling for interference at the hands of this Court does not arise.
8. For the aforestated reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER 1. W.P.Nos.15909/2012 and 5488/2012 and are allowed-in-part and order dated 13.01.2012 passed in R.P.No.101/2010-11 by the second respondent is hereby set aside and matters relating to petitioners are remitted back to the second respondent for adjudicating afresh.
2. W.P.No.3201/2012 stands dismissed.
3. No order as to costs.
SD/- JUDGE VMB