IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.31042/2019(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
PATTADA SRI. GURU NANJESHWARA SHIVACHARYA SWAMIJI AND ALSO MATADHIPATHI S/O LATE PATTADA SRI. PARVATHARAJ SHIVACHARYA SWAMIJI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT SAMASTHANA MUTT HUNASAMARANAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE – 562 157.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.M.CHANDRASHEKAHAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P.M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE – 562 157.
4. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK YELAHANKA BANGALORE – 562 157.
5. SMT. SUBBAMMA W/O LATE RAMANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT HUNASAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 562 157.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. RAVICHANDRA S.N, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:19.06.2018 IN RP.NO.66/2018 AT ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGLAORE THE R-2 HEREIN;
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. G.M.Chandrashekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Narayana Swamy P.M. for petitioner, Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri.Ravichandra S.N, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5. Perused the records.
2. Fifth respondent submitted an application for mutating the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.184 measuring 4 acres situated at Hunasamaranahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk, Jala Hobli. On said application being rejected, an appeal came to be filed, which was also dismissed by third respondent by order dated 23.11.2017 in RA(BNA) 311/2015-16. Hence, aggrieved by the same revision petition came to be filed under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before second respondent in R.P.No.66/2018, who by impugned order dated 19.06.2018 allowed the revision petition, set aside the order passed by second respondent and directed third respondent to effect mutation entry in respect of land in question in the name of fifth respondent. Hence, this writ petition.
3. It is the contention of Sri.Chandrashekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner that land bearing Sy.No.184 is having vast extent of land measuring about 216 acres and an extent of 28 acres 30 guntas was regranted under the provisions of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, as a permanent tenant by order dated 22.10.1964 – Annexure-B and ever since said date, writ petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land after revenue records came to be mutated to his name. It is the further case of petitioner that on advent of computerization of revenue records, the extent of land was shown or depicted as ‘1 acre 11 guntas’ instead of ‘9 acre 5 guntas’ in Column No.12 and on noticing the same, petitioner has filed an application before third respondent for rectification of the same and on dismissal of his application, appeal came to be filed in RA(BNA) No.16/2015-16 before third respondent, who by order dated 10.06.2015-Annexure- H has remanded the matter to jurisdictional Tahsildar with a direction to issue notice to petitioner as well as other khathedars and after summoning original documents an enquiry is to be conducted with a further direction to pass appropriate orders in respect of claim of appellant therein i.e., petitioner herein and as such, it is contended that impugned order passed by the second respondent would come in the way of third respondent adjudicating the claim of petitioner. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order passed by Deputy Commissioner.
4. It is also contended that by virtue of impugned order entry in the revenue records are mutated in the name of fifth respondent, there is likelihood of fifth respondent interfering with the possession of petitioner and attempts would be made to dispossess petitioner from the land in occupation of petitioner i.e., 9 acres 5 guntas.
5. Per contra, Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents and Sri.Ravichandra S.N., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would support the impugned order.
6. As could be seen from the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 23.11.2017 – Annexure-K passed in R.A.No.311/2015-16 claim of fifth respondent to mutate the revenue records to an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.184 namely, subject land, came to be negatived on the ground that documents produced by fifth respondent are manipulated, bogus and created documents. This order was the subject matter of scrutiny by the Deputy Commissioner, who on re- appreciation of entire material placed before him has arrived at a conclusion that documents produced by petitioner are all certified copies including order sheet copy, which evidence the grant of land to an extent of 4 acres in favour of original grantee namely, fifth respondent’s father-in-law. Hence, it came to be held that records produced by fifth respondent is neither fabricated nor created and it is a genuine document. In this background, Deputy Commissioner has allowed the revision petition.
7. One another factor which swayed in the mind of Deputy Commissioner to allow the revision petition is the fact that report of revenue inspector, spot mahazar, survey sketch, which were all part of records, clearly depicted that in an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.184 fifth respondent had been in occupation, possession and enjoyment. It is these facts which came to be noticed by the Deputy Commissioner to arrive at a conclusion that Assistant Commissioner was not justified in jumping to a conclusion that documents produced by fifth respondent are fabricated or concocted. I do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, which is based on appreciation of entire material on record available before him.
8. Though an apprehension is expressed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner that his (petitioner) possession may be disturbed, would call for consideration but that would not be a ground to set aside the impugned order. As rightly pointed by learned Senior Counsel the entire Sy.No.184 measures around 211 acres and petitioner herein claims to have been declared a permanent tenant and granted tenancy under Section 5 of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, in respect of 28 acres 20 guntas and claims to be in possession of 9 acre 5 guntas after having sold other portions of land in Sy.No.184 of Hunasamaranahalli Village. On account of revenue entries being restricted to 1 acre 11 guntas, petitioner has submitted an application to the jurisdictional Tahsildar for entering name of the petitioner in revenue records to an extent of 9 acres 5 guntas instead of 1 acre 11 guntas, which came to be rejected on 13.03.2014 and aggrieved by the said order an appeal has been filed by the petitioner before third respondent in RA(BNA) No.16/2015-16, which came to be allowed by order dated 10.06.2015–Annexure-H and matter has been remanded to fourth respondent with a direction to issue notice to all khathedars and summon all the original documents and conduct an enquiry. When this is the factual possession, it would be definitely open for the Assistant Commissioner to conduct enquiry as ordered and impugned order would not come in the way of consideration of claim of the petitioner herein. If there were to be any threat of dispossession, it would be always open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional and competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if any. In that view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order and as such petition stands rejected subject to observations made hereinabove.
Ordered accordingly.
It is also stated that order dated 10.06.2015 passed in RA(BNA) No.16/2015-16 is under challenge in W.P.No.52805/2018 and necessarily order that would be passed in said writ petition would be binding on these parties.
SD/- JUDGE DR