IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.616/2018(KLR-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI. K H RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE HUTCHAPPA @ CHIKKAHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, 2. K.R. RAJU S/O K.H. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. K.R. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O SRI. K.H. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 4. K.R. JAYARAM S/O SRI K.H. RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1663, ‘SHREE MARUTI FARM’ NEAR IMPACT COLLEGE, AMCO LAYOUT, KODIGEAHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BANGALORE -560 092. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI N SONNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADDL.), YELAHANKA, BENGALURU URBAN DISRICT - 560 064.
5. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE N. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDENT OF KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR SRI VINAYAKA SCHOOL, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 092. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, R5 NOTICE NOT ORDERED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ENDING WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.12.2017, PASSED IN RRT (DIS) CR 176/2017-18 BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN (ANNEXURE-AJ) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is classic case of misappropriation, manipulation and dishonesty by revenue officials at all levels. This also indicates what would be consequences of deliberate wrong and dishonest order on the entire legal system due to inefficiency and corrupt practice of officials manning the revenue department. The normal practice which govern transfer of property particularly immovable property is governed by execution of sale deed in favour of persons who purchase the property. While registering the same a duty is cast upon the Sub Registrar to ensure that said transaction is intimated to the concerned Tahsildar/Revenue Officers in the form of sending Form - J which is filled up and annexed to the sale deed executed. As this Court has been observing for all these years, incompetence of the revenue officials and registering authority has resulted in chaotic condition particularly with reference to maintenance of revenue records. This litigation is one of the classic example. Let us look at the way how the litigation starts and cascades down because of not following the procedure which is statutorily required to be followed by the registering and revenue authorities.
2. In the instant case, the dispute is with reference to transfer of katha in respect of land bearing Sy.No.206/2 of Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, presently situated at Bengaluru North Additional Taluk. Admittedly, the said land was the property of one Bachappa, who had two sons by name Munivenkatappa and Mudlappa. It is stated that one Venkatappa is the only son of Munivenkatappa and another Nanjappa is the only son of Mudlappa.
3. The records would indicate that way back on 5.5.1955 Bachappa’s grand son Venkatappa through his first son Munivenkatappa has sold 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.206/2 in favour of one Venkatamma and the said Sale Deed is not only by Venkatappa but also by his 4 sons. The execution of said Sale Deed is not in dispute. It is seen that for a long time there was no transaction in respect of land in question. However, in the year 1995 there was one more transaction which is with reference to remaining extent of 29 guntas of land in Sy.No.206/2 which is executed by the four sons of Nanjappa who is grand son of Bachappa through his second son Mudlappa in favour of one K.G.Venkatesh and Sri.G.Narayana under a registered Sale Deed dated 27.3.1995. The said sale in favour of Venkatesh and Narayana is not in dispute inasmuch as said 29 guntas is already mutated in their favour vide MR.No.4/2003-04. Said Venkatesh and Narayana are respondent Nos.7 and 8 in this proceedings and they are only formal parties to these proceedings.
4. However, the dispute in these proceedings is only with reference to 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.206/2 which was initially sold by Bachappa’s grand son Venkatappa through his first son Munivenkatappa, where after execution of the Sale Deed on 05.05.1955, the same was not mutated in the name of purchaser – Venkatamma. It is stated that, taking advantage of the same, one Ramachandrappa s/o late Nanjappa, who is the grand son of Bachappa through his second son (who is the vendor of 29 guntas to Venkatesh and Narayana through Sale Deed of the year 1995) would create a General Power of Attorney in respect of a site measuring 60 feet x 120 feet, which is formed in 30 guntas of land which was already sold in favour of Venkatamma, where revenue entries were not transferred to her name. The said General Power of Attorney dated 13.2.1997 was executed by Ramachandrappa s/o Nanjappa in favour of one Ravi is the root cause for all the problems in these proceedings.
5. Admittedly, as on the date of execution of General Power of Attorney, Nanjappa’s son Ramachandrappa did not have title to any portion of land bearing Sy.No.206/2, inasmuch as, entire extent of 1 acre 19 guntas was already sold on two different dates as stated supra, i.e., 30 guntas in favour of Venkatamma on 5.5.1955 and 29 guntas in favour of Venkatesh and Narayana under Sale Deed dated 27.3.1995, therefore, the General Power of Attorney which was executed in favour of Ravi on 13.2.1997 is with reference to site measuring 60 feet x 120 feet formed in non existing land.
6. It is stated that, subsequently said Ravi - the General Power of Attorney Holder sold the site measuring 60 feet x 120 feet in favour of his wife Usha Rani under Sale Deed dated 16.8.1999. Thereafter, the records would disclose that, both Ravi and Usha Rani together executed a Sale Deed in favour of one P.Nagaraju on 14.9.2007, where the vendor Usha Rani would convey 7½ guntas of land to said Nagaraju, who is 5th respondent in these proceedings when admittedly the title she had secured is only to an extent of 60 feet x 120, which works out to 7200 square feet, she would convey 7½ guntas of land in favour of P.Nagaraju which works out to 8494.02 square feet, which is 1294 square feet over and above of the land what was conveyed in her favour. In any event, as observed by this Court supra, Ramachandrappa who executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Ravi had no title either to land measuring 60 feet x 120 feet or to 7½ guntas as stated in the Sale Deed executed by said Ravi as a General Power of Holder of Ramachandrappa and as well as Usha Rani in favour of P.Nagaraju on 14.9.2007.
7. Subsequently, it is seen that a Rectification Deed was executed by Ramachandrappa through his GPA Holder - Ravi along with Usha Rani in favour of P.Nagaraju on 20.5.2016. However, the records would indicate that by then Ramachandrappa had died. Therefore, the Rectification Deed which was executed on 20.5.2016 is by a person who had died much earlier to 20.5.2016 (i.e., the executor Ramachandrappa had died on 28.8.2007 itself). Therefore, the said Rectification Deed would even otherwise would not enure to the benefit of anybody. However, it is on the basis of said Rectification Deed, 5th respondent – P.Nagaraju is staking claim for registration of katha in his favour in respect of 7½ guntas of land in Sy.No.206/2.
8. In the meanwhile Venkatamma died leaving her surviving her husband and other family members, who while partitioning the joint family properties, allotted the land measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.206/2 to the share of 1st petitioner – Ramakrishnappa. It is after the said partition, the 1st petitioner would approach the authorities for change of katha of aforesaid land to his name. The records would indicate that the persons who having sold the property in question in favour of 1st petitioner’s mother – Venkatamma, after noticing the revenue entries still standing in their name, have tried to take advantage of the same.
9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the dispute with reference to RRT proceedings i.e., mutating 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.206/2 is claimed by petitioner – Ramakrishnappa as legal heir of Venkatamma and P.Nagaraju as purchaser of 7½ guntas of land in the very same survey number through a registered Sale Deed from Usha Rani and Ramachandrappa (grand son of Mudlappa s/o Bachappa) was commenced in No.RRT (Dis) 228/ 2007-2008 which was initiated by P.Nagaraju, as stated supra, the Sale Deed which was executed in his favour initially for 7½ guntas was subsequently rectified to show that as plot measuring 60 feet x 120 feet. However, before the revenue authorities, Nagaraju would contend that he is entitled to get his name registered to an extent of 7½ guntas in the land in question based on the Sale Deed which was executed by Ramachandrappa through his Power of Attorney Holder and the person who was claiming title under him, namely Usha Rani in respect of a non existing land. It is the said proceedings before the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Additional Taluk, which came to be allowed by order dated 10.3.2008. When the same was taken up in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in No.RA(BNA) 173/2008-2009 which was filed by Ramakrishnappa in challenge to the order of Special Tahsildar in No.RRT (Dis) 228/2007-2008, the said appeal also came to be dismissed.
10. The 1st petitioner - Ramakrishnappa having suffered an adverse order before the Assistant Commissioner preferred a review petition before the Deputy Commissioner in No.RP.227/2014-15, which also came to be dismissed on 12.7.2017. In the meanwhile, it is stated that registering of katha in the name of Ramachandrappa, who had already sold entire extent of land standing in his name was subject matter of proceedings before the Tahsildar in No.MR.4/2003-04. The same was subject matter of challenge in proceedings bearing No.RA(BNA)797/2007-08 on the file of Deputy Commissioner, which came to be allowed by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 18.12.2015. It is stated that this order of Deputy Commissioner is challenged by said Nagaraj though he was not a party before the Deputy Commissioner in proceedings No.RA (BNA) 797/2007-08 by filing review petition before the District Commissioner in proceedings No.RP.444/2015-16, where it is seen that an order is passed in recognizing the right of said Nagaraju for 7 ½ guntas. It is stated that the orders passed in aforesaid proceedings bearing No.RP (BNA) 227/2014-15 and in RP.444/2015-16 are in challenge in WP.Nos.51363-364/2017.
11. In the background of all these litigations, it is seen that though 1st petitioner’s mother Venkatamma purchased 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.206/2 way back on 5.5.1955, the revenue authorities thought as if they are benevolent in accepting her title to an extent of 21½ guntas and for remaining extent have felt the right person to whom it is to be registered is P.Nagaraju. Accordingly, for the first time, Venkatamma’s name came on record as owner and kathedar in MR.No.H-15/2017-18 and while doing so, mutation was fixed in the name of Nagaraju to an extent of 7½ guntas which is in MR.No.H-5/2017-18. Therefore, the 1st petitioner has approached the revenue authorities to register katha of the said land in succession proceedings before the authorities in proceedings No.RRT.(Vivada) CR.176/2017-18.
12. In the cause title of proceedings in No.RRT.(Vivada) CR.176/2017-18 which is maintained by the authorities, as could be seen from Annexure-AJ it is indicated that the applicants are N.G.Ramachandrappa s/o Nanjappa and Venkatamma w/o Chikkahuchhappa, where respondents are shown as Government. This Annexure-AJ is the order sheet maintained in the said proceedings, wherein it would indicate this matter was heard and reserved for orders on 17.10.2017, subsequently on 24.10.2017 the order was pronounced in open court after affixing signature to the order. Thereafter, without there being any reference to any application being filed seeking modification of the said order, the Special Tahsildar suo motu takes up the said matter for modification of his own order and passes modified order on 6.12.2017 which is subject matter of challenge in this proceedings. The modified order which is passed by the Tahsildar is at Annexure-AJ.
13. When this Court noticed the manner in which the manipulation is done, directed the learned Additional Government to keep the Tahsildar who passed the order impugned, present before the Court. Accordingly, Mr.Anil M, Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Additional District, is present before the Court. He accepts that the order was passed by him on 24.10.2017. He would state that he had pronounced the order in open court on 24.10.2017 by affixing his signature. When he is enquired about what was the order that was passed by him on 24.10.2017, his reply is that said order is not available. He submits that on coming to know that there are certain mistakes after signing the earlier order, he modified the order on 6.12.2017.
14. However, when he was enquired as what was the order that was passed earlier, what was the mistake that is seen in earlier order and what changes he has made therein; he is not in a position to answer the same. He feigns ignorance of the same thereby clearly indicating that he has exceeded his jurisdiction in taking the law in to his hands, in not following the procedure and passing the order according to his whims and fancies. This clearly shows that all is not well in the Revenue Department as this Court has been observing in several of the matters of this kind decided earlier. It is one such order which is passed by an irresponsible and negligent revenue officer. In fact, the negligent act in this proceedings is seen from the authority, who registered the sale deed of Venkatamma on 5.5.1955 in not informing regarding transaction that has taken place in the year 1955 to revenue authority to make necessary changes in the said revenue records, which has cascaded down to series of litigations wasting the valuable time of all the authorities as well as this Court as if the Courts have no better work to do other than correcting the mistakes of incompetent officials/officers who are found to be in abundance in the said Revenue Department.
15. In the fact situation, it is clearly seen that the order impugned is not based on merits, it is passed for extraneous reasons. To ascertain what are the extraneous circumstances led to passing the order impugned is required to be seen; further what is the order which was passed earlier on 24.10.2017 which is destroyed by the Tahsildar as he himself would admit before the Court is also required to be looked into. When this Court repeatedly questioned the Tahsildar before this Court as to what has happened to earlier order, he has stated that the same is not available with him thereby meaning that he has destroyed the said order. This is nothing but manipulation of record in destroying the orders to pass inconsiderate orders for extraneous reasons.
16. Therefore, in the fact situation, this Court is of considered opinion that it is just and necessary that the Principal Revenue Secretary should take note of this in keeping the then Special Tahsildar of Bengaluru North Additional Taluk, Mr.Anil M, under suspension forthwith and initiate appropriate proceedings. This Court would not have taken the extreme step of passing this order but for the reason that though the Special Tahsidlar Mr.Anil who is present before the Court is not cooperating with the Court in giving honest answers to the questions raised by this Court. He is not stating as to what order was passed by him on 24.10.2017 and for what reason the same was modified.
However, he tries to take shelter under certain communications, the said documents prima facie appear to be manipulated to get this person present before this Court, to wriggle out of the situation in which he has voluntarily placed himself. Further, as a quasi judicial authority there was no restrain to him to pass the order fearlessly and honestly in accepting the material available on record. However, he himself admitted that he has passed the order without looking in to the material on record thereby he admits carelessness on his part. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is required to be set aside.
17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 6.12.2017 in No.RRT (Dis) CR.176/2017-18 passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Additional Taluk, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. While doing so, this Court would direct the authorities to restore katha of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.206/2 of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, to the name of Smt.Venkatamma and to effect mutation of said land in her name pursuant to sale deed dated 05.05.1955. Thereafter, this Court would direct the Principal Revenue Secretary to keep the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Additional Taluk, Mr.Anil M, under suspension; to hold an enquiry into the manner in which he has passed the illegal order, referred to supra and thereafter to take suitable action against the said officer.
18. The presence of Mr.Anil M, Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Additional Taluk, is noted and he is directed to affix his signature to the order sheet, which shall be countersigned by the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.H.Venkatesh Dodderi. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Karnataka, to comply the direction issued in this Order.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-