IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.61462/2016 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN SRI D.T.VENKATARAMAIAH, S/O THAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT DHANAMATTANAHALLI, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 121 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.S.NARESH SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING,DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR.T.L, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:8.10.1998 PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOLAR, ORDER DTD:16.12.2004 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR AND THE ORDER DTD:3.8.2016 IN NO.RA NO.18/2013-14 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER, KOLAR, TRUE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-G, H, & J RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner herein is impugning the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RA.No.18/2013-14 dated 3.8.2016. In the said proceedings, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.12.2014 in No.LND.RUO.41/1998- 99, which was initiated pursuant to the proceedings on the file of Tahsildar in No.LND.PT.102/1995-96 dated 8.10.1998, is confirmed. The aforesaid proceedings is in respect of land bearing Sy.No.60, New Sy.No.85 of Dhanamattanahalli Village, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk.
2. The records would indicate that an extent of 6 acres in land bearing Sy.No.60 of Dhanamattanahalli Village was under unauthorized occupation and cultivation of one Appajappa, who filed application in Form No.1 on 2.7.1971 seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation. In the said application, he has stated that he is in occupation of an extent of 8 acres in Sy.No.60 of Dhanamattanahalli Village of Vemagal Hobli and the same is being cultivated by him for the enjoyment of himself and his family members, who are ten in number. In his application, he would also give the number of cattle he owns as well as extent of land held by him, which is to the extent of 1 acre 5 guntas of wet land and 4 acres 38 guntas of dry land in Medihal Village. The application in Form No.1 does not suppress any material and does not indicate an intention of misleading the authorities to consider the application dated 2.7.1971.
3. The application of Appajappa was considered on its merits and an extent of 6 acres was granted in his favour by issuing grant certificate/saguvali chit on 18.9.1972. The grant certificate/saguvali chit which is issued in No.LND.TT(U).57/1971-72 does not indicate that the grant is subject to any condition of non alienation instead, it is for an upset price of Rs.1,220/- in understanding that the grant is as good as conveying the land in his favour in the form of sale, wherein no conditions are stipulated and no restrictions are imposed with reference to usage of land. It is seen that the grantee who has acquired title in the aforesaid form was in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the same till 14.1.1980, on which day he has conveyed said 6 acres of land in Sy.No.60, which is subsequently renumbered as Sy.No.85 of Dhanamattanahalli village in favour of the purchaser, petitioner herein. The registered sale deed has conveyed absolute title to the purchaser since the grant in favour of vendor did not stipulate any condition.
4. When matter stood thus, it is seen that there were certain disputes between the petitioner herein and adjacent land owner/s of land in question, who have tried to disturb the possession, cultivation and enjoyment of land purchased by the petitioner herein resulting in a suit for permanent injunction being filed by petitioner in OS.No.541/1992 against one Munihanumappa, the adjacent land owner and other persons. It is also seen that said suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 9.2.1999, which was subject matter of an appeal in RA.No.68/1999 by the defendants in OS.No.541/1992, wherein said appeal is partly allowed in considering declaration of title to suit property in favour of petitioner herein. However, it is stated that consequential relief of perpetual injunction in favour of petitioner is declined by judgment and decree dated 6.6.2005.
5. In this background, it is stated that defendants in original suit have initiated proceedings before the Tahsildar by filing a complaint that the vendor of petitioner has secured grant contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, thereby called upon the authorities under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL Act’ for short) to cancel the grant in favour of petitioner’s vendor. It is seen that in the proceeding initiated before the authorities under PTCL Act, petitioner was not a party. The Tahsildar without notice to petitioner has decided that there is violation of grant in proceedings bearing No.102/1995-96.
6. With this, it is seen that the proceedings initiated before the Tahsildar based on the complaint by defendants in the original suit thereafter, pursued before the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, is nothing but a personal vendetta between the unsuccessful defendants in original suit and the petitioner herein. In fact, they have tried to deprive title of the petitioner to land in question under registered sale deed of the year 1980, also under the decree in original suit, which is upheld in a regular appeal before the competent Civil Court and thereafter, by initiating proceedings on revenue side before the quasi judicial authority. When title of the petitioner to land in question is confirmed by a competent Civil Court challenging the same in a revenue proceedings under the pretext that the petitioner’s predecessor has secured grant by suppressing facts, is erroneous as the application in Form No.1 produced before this Court vide Annexure-A clearly discloses that the petitioner’s predecessor in title has not suppressed the extent of land which was in his possession and cultivation on the date when he sought regularization of said land.
7. It is further seen that in the Grant Certificate which is issued in favour of the petitioner’s predecessor in title in the year 1972, no conditions are stipulated and the land is conveyed in favour of the grantee for an upset price of Rs.1,220/-. In that view of the matter, the Government has lost all its claim over said land after the grantee is put in possession of the same and for a period of 8 years thereafter, he was in uninterrupted cultivation and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, he has conveyed said land in favour of the petitioner herein under registered sale deed and thereafter, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for a long time until the defendants in original suit without any manner of right, title or interest in the land in question disturbed petitioner’s possession and cultivation which has resulted in series of litigations being initiated against the petitioner resulting in the order of cancellation of grant being passed commencing from Tahsildar, confirmed by Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner.
8. On going through the material on record it is seen that the entire litigation is nothing but an off shoot of personal enmity and greed to stake claim over the land belonging to somebody else by defendants in the original suit. When they have failed to get the relief in judicial proceedings, they have resorted to initiate proceedings before the quasi judicial authority citing that there is violation of grant Rules. The said accusation and allegation is factually incorrect in the absence of any attempt on the part of petitioner’s predecessor in title either in suppressing the extent of land that was held by him or making misrepresentation to seek grant, which is made in the year 1972 without there being any condition stipulated therein, which could not have been infact entertained by the authorities under the Act after a period of 25 years from the date of grant at the instance of somebody who has no manner of right, title or interest in said land. Even otherwise, the conduct of defendants in the original suit is not that of law abiding citizen in exposing the cause of general public from government land being misappropriated. The purpose and reason in initiating proceedings against the petitioner herein is in retaliation to losing civil litigation on merits on judicial side, which is the sole cause for initiating proceedings before the Tahsildar, which should not be encouraged by giving undue importance to said proceedings.
9. With such observations, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 8.10.1998 passed by Tahsildar in No.LND.PT.102/1995-96, which is confirmed by Assistant Commissioner by order dated 16.12.2004 in No.LND.RUO.41/1998-99 and followed by confirmation order dated 3.8.2016 in RA.No.18/2013-14 by Deputy Commissioner, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-