IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.56225/2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI D RAMANNA S/O LATE SRI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVALAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRIC T- 571432 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.N. PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA Dr.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE TAHASILDAR NAGAMANGALA TALUK NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT - 571432 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT – 571435 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2016 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN COLUMN No.9 OF RTC IN ANNEXURE- D-17 AND CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN COLUMN No.9 OF RTC IN FUTURE AND ALSO IN THE MUTATION REGISTER VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought for setting aside the communication / order dated 24.06.2016 vide Annexure ‘F’ to the petition issued / passed by the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura sub-division, Pandavapura, in proceedings No.LND:CR:87/2016-17 and consequently, direct the second respondent – Tahasildar, Nagamangala Taluk, to restore the name of the petitioner in column No.9 of RTC., vide Annexure ‘D17’ to the petition and continue his name as such and also restore his name in the mutation register vide Annexure ‘E’ to the petition.
2. According to the petitioner, his father, Sri Ramaiah, had purchased land measuring to an extent of 04 Acres in old Sy. No.68, new Sy. No.172 (stated as Sy. No.178 in the memorandum of the petition) situate at Thattahalli village, Devalapura hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, under registered sale deed dated 30.03.1972 from Sri N. Bhaskar Sampath (stated as S.Bhaskar Sampath in para No.1 of the petition).
3. The records would indicate that the said land was granted in favour of one Sri T.S. Seetharam Hatwar / Sri T.S. Seetharamaiah Hatwar vide grant order dated 12.01.1962 / 24.02.1962 / 30.10.1961 under darkhast subject to the condition that the land should not be alienated within a period of 15 years from the date of grant / issuance of saguvali chit. However, the said land was sold by the grantee, Sri T. S. Seetharamaiah Hatwar, in favour of Sri N. Bhaskar Sampath, son of Pandit Narasimhaiah, under registered sale deed dated 12.12.1968. Thereafter, Sri N. Bhaskar Sampath sold the very same land in favour of Sri Ramaiah, the father of the petitioner, under registered sale deed dated 30.03.1972. It is stated that phodi and durasti of the said land in Sy. No.68 was conducted and it was given new Sy. No.172. Petitioner’s father, Sri Ramaiah, during his lifetime continued in possession and enjoyment of the said land, which was mutated in his name vide M.R. No.38/72-73. Sri Ramaiah is said to have died on 12.12.2009 and thereafter, IHC proceedings were initiated and the said land was mutated in the name of his son, petitioner herein, vide M.R. No.34/2012- 13 dated 21.03.2013.
4. When the matter stood thus, it is stated that some public spirited persons made an application to the authorities to enquire into the grant, which was initially made in favour of Sri T.S. Seetharamaiah Hatwar, on the ground that he had violated the conditions of grant. According to the petitioner, when he obtained RTC in respect of the said land for the year 2018, he came to know that in column No.9 of the RTC, his name had been deleted and in its place ‘Government’ was shown as per M.R. No.H31/2017-18 vide Annexure ‘E’ to the petition, wherein there is reference to order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner in proceedings No.LND:CR:87:2016-17 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been in possession of the said land since 1972 and he has developed the same by investing huge sum of money and when that being the position, respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner without issuing notice to him and without conducting enquiry, has issued communication / order dated 24.06.2016 vide Annexure ‘F’ to the petition, whereby he has cancelled the order of grant dated 24.02.1962 bearing No.KDR.22-1 made in respect of the land measuring 04 Acres in Sy. No.68 block No.2 (new Sy. No.172) and mutation entry vide M.R. No.H:34/2012-13 effected in the name of the petitioner in respect of the said land and has directed respondent No.2 – Tahasildar, Nagamangala Taluk, to enter the name of the Government in column No.9 of RTC in respect of the said land. While doing so, Assistant Commissioner has directed Tahasildar to submit report with regard to disciplinary action to be taken in respect of Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector, who had improperly effected transfer of khata (in favour of the petitioner herein).
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the material on record including the order sheet which indicates that on 22.03.2019, this Court had directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to meddle with the revenue entries standing in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 04 Acres in old Sy. No.68 block No.2 (new Sy. No.172). On going through the impugned order dated 24.06.2016 (Annexure ‘F’ to the petition) passed by Assistant Commissioner, it is seen that Sri T.S. Seetharamaiah Hatwar was granted the said land vide order dated 12.01.1962 / 30.10.1961/ 24.02.1962 subject to non-alienability condition for a period of 15 years from the date of grant / issuance of saguvali chit. However, the original grantee sold the said land in favour of Sri N. Bhaskar Sampath under registered sale deed dated 12.12.1968 i.e., within the prohibited period of non-alienation. Subsequently, Sri N.
Bhaskar Sampath had sold the said land in favour of Sri Ramaiah, the father of the petitioner herein, under registered sale deed dated 30.03.1972. After the death of Sri Ramaiah, the said land was mutated in the name of the petitioner herein vide M.R. No.34/2012-13. It is stated that some public spirited persons had made an application to the competent authority to enquire into the grant of the said land on the premise that there was lapse committed by the original grantee inasmuch as he had sold the said land during the prohibited non-alienation period. In that behalf, the second respondent – Tahasildar has addressed letter dated 18.05.2016 to the Assistant Commissioner stating that the original grantee, Sri T.S. Seetharamaiah Talwar, had sold the said land during the prohibited period of non-alienation and thereby, had committed violation of one of the conditions of grant. Pursuant to the said letter, the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings in LND.CR.87/2016-17 nearly 48 years after the date (12.12.1968) of sale of the said land initially by the original grantee, Sri T.S. Seetharamaiah Hatwar, in favour of Sri N.
Bhaskar Sampath, from whom the petitioner’s father, Sri Ramaiah, had purchased the said land. It is seen that the third respondent without issuing notice to the petitioner herein, has passed the impugned order in cancelling the order of grant dated 24.02.1962 bearing No.KDR.22-1 made in favour of Sri T.S. Seetharamaiah Hatwar in respect of the land measuring 04 Acres in Sy. No.68 block No.2 (new Sy. No.172) as well as the mutation entry effected in the name of the petitioner vide M.R. No.H:34/2012-13 and has directed respondent No.2 – Tahasildar to register the name of the Government in column No.9 of RTC in respect of the said land. The said order of Assistant Commissioner is sought to be challenged in this petition on the ground that the proceedings initiated by the third respondent for cancellation of grant in favour of Sri T.S. Seetharamaiah Hatwar is highly belated, the said Authority has not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned order is contrary to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and another vs. D. Narsing Rao and others reported in ((2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 695).
7. In this proceedings, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 tried to support the impugned order passed by the third respondent on the ground that there is indeed lapse on the part of the original grantee, Sri T.S. Seetharamaiah Hatwar, in selling the land measuring to an extent of 04 Acres in Sy. No.68 (new Sy. No.172), which was granted in his favour vide order dated 12.01.1962 / 24.02.1962 within the prohibited period of non-alienation and as such, the same has been rightly cancelled by the third respondent on the basis of the letter dated 18.05.2016 addressed to him by the second respondent–Tahasildar. Since violation of the said condition of grant had come to the knowledge of respondent Nos.2 and 3 at the instance of some public spirited persons, action has been taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 immediately thereafter. With reference to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District (referred supra), learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that if the said legal position is applicable to the facts of the present case, thisCourt will have to take a liberal view inasmuch as the interest of the State is also involved.
8. Perused the order impugned in the light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Apex Court. When the same is looked into, it is clearly seen that the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order, has cancelled grant order dated 24.02.1962 made in favour of Sri T.S. Seetharamaiah Hatwar after a lapse of nearly 48 years from the date of sale initially made by him in favour of Sri N. Bhaskar Sampath in the year 1968. During the said intervening period of nearly 48 years, the khata was changed thrice i.e., from the name of the original grantee – Sri T.S Seetharamaiah Hatwar to the name of the subsequent purchaser, Sri N. Sampath Bhaskar, initially in the year 1968, thereafter, in the name of Sri Ramaiah, the petitioner’s father, in the year 1972 and subsequent to the death of petitioner’s father, in the name of the petitioner in the year 2012-13 thereby allowing the petitioner and his predecessors-in-title to enjoy the said property without any interference or disturbance for nearly 48 years from the date of the grant.
The Apex Court in the matter of Joint Collector (referred supra) has observed in para Nos.14 to 17 of its judgment as under:
“14. Admittedly, the names of the predecessors in title of the respondents are found mentioned in the Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55 pertaining to Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally village. The purchase of the said lands by the respondents from them under registered sale deeds are also not seriously disputed. The further fact is that they have been regularly paying land revenue continuously since the year 1954. The appellants herein issued the impugned notice dated 31.12.2004 under Section 166B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act,1317 F (1907) for cancellation of entries in the Khasra Pahani of the year 1953-54, by fixing the date of inquiry as 5.2.2005 and that notice is the subject matter of challenge here.
15. Section 166-B reads as follows:
“166-B. Revision:—(1) Subject to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 F, the Government or any Revenue officer not lower in rank to a Collector the Settlement Commissioner of Land Records may call for the record of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and may make suitable order in that behalf;
Provided that no order or decision affecting the rights of the ryot shall be modified or annulled unless the concerned parties are summoned and heard.
(2) Every Revenue Officer lower in rank to a Collector or Settlement Commissioner may call for the records of a case or proceedings for a subordinate department and satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and if, in his opinion, any order or decision or, proceedings should be modified or annulled, he shall put up the file of the case and with his opinion to the Collector or Settlement Commissioner as the case may be. Thereupon the Collector or Settlement Commissioner may pass suitable order under the provisions of sub-section (1).
(3) The original order or decision or an authentic copy of the original order or decision sought to be revised shall be filed along with every application for revision.”
16. No time limit is prescribed in the above Section for the exercise of suo motu power but the question is as to whether the suo motu power could be exercised after a period of 50 years. The Government as early as in the year 1991 passed an order reserving 477 acres of land in Survey Nos. 36 and 37 of Gopanpally village for house- sites to the government employees. In other words the Government had every occasion to verify the revenue entries pertaining to the said lands while passing the Government Order dated 24.9.1991 but no exception was taken to the entries found. Further the respondents herein filed Writ Petition No.21719 of 1997 challenging the Government order dated 24.9.1991 and even at that point of time no action was initiated pertaining to the entries in the said survey numbers. Thereafter, the purchasers of land from respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a civil suit in O.S.No.12 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for a declaration that they were lawful owners and possessors of certain plots of land in survey No.36, and after contest, the suit was decreed and said decree is allowed to become final. By the impugned Notice dated 31.12.2004 the suo motu revision power under Regulation 166B referred above is sought to be exercised after five decades and if it is allowed to do so it would lead to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties over immovable properties.
17. In the light of what is stated above we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in affirming the view of the learned single Judge of the High Court that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law.”
9. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the light of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, the question of confirming the order dated 24.06.2016 (Annexure ‘F’ to the petition) passed by the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura sub-division, in proceedings No.LND.CR.87/2016-17 does not arise inasmuch as the said proceedings is initiated 48 years after the said land was sold by the original grantee, Sri T.S. Seetharamaiah Hatwar, and that too when the said proceedings is conducted without notice to the petitioner herein, in whose name the said land was registered and who is in possession and enjoyment of the same.
10. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Petition is allowed by quashing the communication / order dated 24.06.2016 vide Annexure ‘F’ to the petition issued / passed by the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura sub-division, Pandavapura, in proceedings No.LND.CR.87/2016-17. While doing so, this Court would direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restore the name of petitioner in column No.9 of RTC., in respect of the land measuring 04 Acres in Sy. No.68 (new Sy. No.172) situate at Thattahalli village, Devalapura hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District.
11. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma