IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17907/2011(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI CHIKKAMUNIKALAPPA S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT BYRAGANAHALLI VILLAGE BASHETTIHALLI HOBLI, SHIDDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs) 1(a) SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIKALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 1(b) UMA B.C.
D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIKALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 1(c) SHIVARAJ B.C.
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIKALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT: BYRAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASHETTIHALLI HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.01.2018) ..PETITIONERS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR N. ADVOCATE FOR K SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR (SUB DIVISION) CHIKKABALLAPUR.
3 . NARAYANAPPA S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT BYRAGANAHALLI VILLAGE BASHETTIHALLI HOBLI SHIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R1, IN R.A. NO.94/09-
10 AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1, DATED 23.3.2011 IN RA.NO.94/09-10, VIDE AT ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri Vijaya Kumar.N, learned Advocate for petitioners and Shri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for the State.
2. Shri Vijaya Kumar submitted that petitioners’ father was granted land measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.20 of Byraganahalli Village, Bashettyhalli Hobli, Shidalaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Accordingly, saguvali chit has been issued on 05.05.1995 in favour of petitioners’ father. As per M.R.No.2/1994-1995, his name has been entered in the revenue records.
3. Third respondent approached the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur, challenging the grant made in favour of petitioners’ father in proceedings No.L.N.D:R.A:11/2007-2008. By order dated 30.09.2009, the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura rejected third respondent’s request to cancel the grant. Feeling aggrieved, third respondent approached the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura in R.A.No.94/2009-2010. By the impugned order dated 23rd March 2011, the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura has cancelled the grant as also revenue entries made in favour of petitoners’ father. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Shri. Vijaya Kumar further submitted that the photographs produced by the petitioners as additional documents before this Court along with application- I.A.No.1/17 dated 3rd July 2017, demonstrate that the land is even and cultivable. However, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded that the land is abutting the village and there was no sign of any cultivation in the land in question. Therefore the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura is unsustainable in law.
5. Shri Y.D. Harsha, learned Addl. Government Advocate for State has filed statement of objections along with copy of mahazar and photograph.
6. Shri Harsha submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a clear finding that the land in question is within the village limits and is in front of a burial ground. Further the land is used by public as a road. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Advocate for petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate and perused the records.
8. The Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur, in his order dated 23.03.2011 has recorded that an inspection was conducted by the Tahasildhar, Sidhlagatta and Deputy Director of Land Reforms, Chikaballapura on 22.03.2011. During the said inspection, the Village Accountant and the Revenue Inspector were also present. Based on the report of the Tahasildhar, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded that there was no sign of cultivation in the land. Some shrubs had grown in the said place. Further, the land in question is used by the public to go to the burial ground and gunduthopu.
9. A perusal of the Inspection report and the photographs annexed to the report shows that there is no cultivation in the land in question.
10. A grant can be cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Admittedly, third respondent has approached the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur for cancellation of the land and upon his rejection, he has appealed to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur has cancelled the grant based on the factual findings recorded by the Tahasildar and Deputy Director of Land Records. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned order.
11. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs. passion Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-