IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.42801/2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
MUNIKRISHANA S/O LATE M MALIGENANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOLALI VILLAGE HUTTUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.D K RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR-563101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-4 DTD 22.02.2018 VIDE ANNX-A AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 4.6.2016 VIDE ANNX-B, ANNX-B1 AND ANNX-B2 SEEKING CONTINUING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BOTH IN COLUMN NO.9 AND 12(2) OF THE RTC AND R-4 MAY BE DIRECTED TO CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BOTH IN COLUMN NO.90 AND 12(2) OF THE RTC IN RESPECT OF THE LAND.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is seeking continuation of his name in computerized RTC on the basis of the Grant Certificate vide Annexure-C issued in Form No.1, where he would claim that an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas of land in sy.No.103 of Holali village, Huttur Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District was granted in favour of his father in proceedings No.LND.SPL.195/72-73 dated 10.9.1974. He would also state that the said land was mutated in his favour vide M.R.No.5/95-96, wherein, it is shown that the said land is registered in the name of Malige Nanjappa son of Munivenkatappa, on the basis of partition entered into between Malige Nanjappa and his son Munikrishnappa.
2. According to learned Additional Government Advocate, the said document is forged one. To substantiate the same, he would procure the original M.R. register maintained in the Office of the Tahsildar, Kolar Taluk, where the entry at M.R.5/95-96 is with reference to the land bearing sy.No.116 measuring 4 acres 34 guntas in respect of the sale transaction dated 12.1.1995 under registered document bearing No.2613/94-95, thereby clearly indicating that the said document at Annexure-D1 is not a original document. When the certified copy of the said document was shown to Ms. L. Gayathri, Tahsildar of Kolar, who is present before this Court, she would state that signature of K Sujatha as seen in the said document is forged inasmuch as the said signature does not tally with the signature of K. Sujatha, which is found in the said office.
3. Insofar as Annexure-D is concerned, which is with reference to the mutation entry in MR No.6/77-78, the said document is also a bogus document, inasmuch as the signature of K Sujatha as seen in the said document is also bogus one. However, the original of M.R.No.6/77-78 is not produced before this Court. It is stated that Annexure-A, B and Annexure-C- Form No.1, dated 10.7.1975 is not issued by the Office of the Tahsildar as per the submission of the Assistant Commissioner, who was present before the Court and whose submission is recorded in the order sheet of this Court on 8.7.2019. Sri. V Somashekar, Assistant Commissioner would state that the land bearing sy.No.103 of Holali village was considered for grant in the year 1977-78 initially in favour of 17 persons and thereafter on two other occasions, the land in the said survey number was considered for grant. According to him there was no grant in the said survey number earlier to 1977.
4. In this back ground, when Annexure-C, D and D1 and all other documents are found to be fake documents by this Court, on the basis of the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate, as well as the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar, who are present before this Court, this court would dispose of this writ petition on the ground that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered on the basis of aforesaid fake documents.
5. Apart from that, this court would direct respondent No.4-Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry with reference to creator of fake documents. The Tahsildar-4th respondent is also reserved liberty to initiate enquiry against the petitioner and others, who are involved in creating aforesaid document.
6. During the course of arguments original of Form No.1 and the certified copy of the Register of Darkhasth is produced before this Court for perusal. Even these documents are taken on record and ordered to be sent to Tahsildar to be looked into genuineness of the same at the time of enquiry.
7. It is made clear that the enquiry as referred to supra shall be initiated within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and same shall be concluded within 60 days therefrom and thereafter the out come should be informed to this Court. Simultaneously, if fraud is proved, then liberty is reserved as stated supra to launch criminal prosecution forthwith by filing a complaint with the competent authority.
8. In case, if the documents are found to be genuine irrespective of all the submissions made by the parties referred to supra, he is directed to register the name of the petitioner in the RTC as prayed in the writ petition.
With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PSG*