IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NOs.28206-28207/2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O BALAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A HOOVINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK – 560 064.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R. NARAYANA RAO, ADV., ON BEHALF OF SRI. RAJESWARA P.N, ADV.,) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH & NORTH(ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3 . THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH(ADDL) TALUK, YELAHANKA BENGALURU – 560 064.
4 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER(SLAO-2) KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADV., FOR R-4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:16.08.2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNEXURE-A).
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. H.R.Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Rajeswara P.N for petitioner, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.A.C.Balaraj, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner who is daughter-in-law of Sri.
Thoti Byrappa, S/o Chikkamuniyappa is before this Court calling in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 16.08.2011 passed by second respondent, whereunder said authority in exercise of power vested under Section 136 (3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act’), has ordered for cancellation of mutation entry carried out in the Sy.No.104/P11 to an extent of 2 Acres being deleted and name of the Government being reflected in the revenue records.
3. Aforesaid Sri. Thoti Byrappa, S/o Chikkamuniyappa is said have been granted land by issuance of Saguvali chit on 5.12.1965 (5.11.1965) and as such revenue records came to be mutated in his name and on his demise, name of his son i.e., petitioner’s husband Sri.Balakrishnappa was entered and on the death of Balakrishnappa, name of his wife namely petitioner’s name has been entered in revenue records. At that juncture, jurisdictional Tahsildar after having initiated the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act, forwarded a report to second respondent, since there was a serious doubt with regard to ownership of the land. Second respondent, on receipt of the report from third respondent, issued notice to petitioner herein by calling upon her to produce documents in support of her claim over the land measuring 2 Acres in Sy.No.104/P11. She has appeared before second respondent and submitted records which were available with her namely, Death certificate, Pahani extracts, Mutation extracts, Saguvali chit, Genealogical tree of the family.
4. Second respondent- Deputy Commissioner has visited the office of the Tahsildar, Yelahanka on 28.07.2011 to examine and ascertain as to whether grant made in favour of the petitioner is genuine or otherwise. In the process, he has noticed that during the year 1975-76 an application had been submitted by deceased Thoti Byrappa to the Tahsildar for grant of 3 Acres of land contending interalia that on period of emergency then declared having come to an end he had been released from bonded labour and thereafter he continued to be in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of land in question and as such sought for grant of said land. Based on said application, jurisdictional Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk is said to have conducted spot inspection and placed report in L.N.D.C.R.182/86-87 dated 24.09.1986 stating thereunder that said Thoti Byrappa is in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the said land. After having noticed this report as well as application of Thoti Byrappa, Deputy Commissioner has arrived at a conclusion that if the grant was made in favour of said Thoti Byrappa on 5.12.1965/5.11.1965, a cloud is created over the right claimed by the petitioner or her predecessors title since in the year 1986 or immediately preceding the said date, he could not have submitted an application for grant of said land, inasmuch as, said land have already been granted on 5.12.1965/5.11.1965. As such, doubting the grant and also opining that there was no such order passed granting land in question in favour of Thoti Byrappa, impugned order came to be passed.
5. One another intriguing factor which has unfolded in the present case is, deceased Thoti Byrappa during his life time had initiated proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 for restoration, since he had sold said land in favour of one Sri. Borappa which ended in an order being passed in K.S.C:S.T:137:95-96 on 27.09.1996-Annexure-E, ordering for restoration of said land in favour of original grantee i.e., father-in-law of the petitioner. If there was any doubt with regard to the grant, authorities ought to have initiated proceedings then itself. At that point of time, they did not choose to do so. This Court has consistently held that proceedings if any to be initiated for setting aside the order of grant made has to be exercised within a reasonable time. As such, in the normal course this court would have quashed the impugned order on this short ground itself, but for the reason that in the instant case, petitioner is claiming grant is of the year 1965 and an application being available in the records of the village office, Yelahanka said to have been submitted by the deceased-Thoti Byrappa is of the year 1985-1986. As such, it would be apt and appropriate to remit the matter back to Deputy Commissioner for adjudication afresh taking note of these facts and then arrived at a conclusion as to whether grant made in favour of the petitioner was genuine or otherwise.
For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Writ petitions are allowed.
(2) Order dated 16.08.2011-Annexure-A passed by second respondent is quashed and proceedings in RRT(2)N(A)CR/387/2009-10 is remitted back to second respondent for adjudication afresh, who shall adjudicate the proceedings keeping in mind observations made hereinabove.
(3) Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. A.C.Balaraj, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.4 are permitted to file memo of appearance/vakalathnama within four weeks from today.
SD/- JUDGE RU