IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.5790/2018(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SRI MARUTHI.P, S/O P.G.PAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.250/9, 3RD CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU – 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI P.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR BEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION 2ND FLOOR, KANDHAYA BHAVANA, BENGALURU – 560 009 4. THE THASILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDHAYA BHAVANA K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND AND 4TH RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DATED 03.11.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner herein is seeking writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider his representation dated 3.11.2017, at Annexure-J, to remove the unauthorized insertions in record of right and Index of Land pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.68/2 of Parappana Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Sy.No.68/2 of Parappanaha Agrahara belonged to his grand father, namely Gullaiah s/o Papanna, who purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 20.3.1928 from one Lingaiah and Annaiah for valuable consideration of Rs.100/- and had been in possession and cultivation of the same from the date of its purchase. Subsequently in a partition which had taken place in the family of petitioner’s grand father, the land in question had fallen to the share of Papa Reddy(petitioner’s father) on 3.6.1965, thereafter, in a partition which had taken place on 29.11.2004 in the family of Papa Reddy(petitioner’s father), 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.68/2 has fallen to the share of the petitioner. It is that extent of land which he got converted on 20.2.2014 vide proceedings bearing No.ALN:(S.B.)(B.H.)SR/55/13-14. During the said period he has secured certified copy of the record of right, which did not indicate any further transaction with reference to the land in question and it reflected the title of his grand father – Gullaiah having purchased the same from Lingaiah and Annaiah.
3. However, subsequently in the year 2014 when the petitioner took one more set of copies of Index of Land and record of right for the purpose of securing information regarding title of the land standing in his name, he noticed certain changes in the said documents indicating as if there was violation of Grant Rules by the grantee of land in question which had necessitated the Tahsildar of Bengaluru South Taluk to pass orders in taking away the land that was granted in favour of the petitioner’s grand father and re- granting the same in favour of Lingaiah, Chenniga and Junja. It is this entry inserted in to the record of right and Index of Land which is sought to be corrected by giving representation on 3.11.2017, at Annexure-J. Though the said representation was given in the year 2017, till to-day no steps are taken by the authorities. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking certain directions to the respondents, namely (1) State of Karnataka, represented by its Secretary, (2) Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, (3) Assistant Commissioner, South Sub Division and (4) Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk.
4. In this proceedings, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure original records of the land in question from the office of Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Advocate could able to secure record of right, however, he was not able to secure the Index of Land. When the said record of right and certified copy of record of right produced at Annexure-C in this proceedings are looked in to, the certified copy of record of right produced in this proceedings clearly discloses that at Sl.No.170 the land bearing Sy.No.68/2 is registered in the name of petitioner’s grand father - Gullaiah and column Nos.4, 5 and 6 are blank. This certified copy is said to have been taken by the petitioner on 6.3.2012 under Right to Information Act. Whereas the subsequent copy of record of right at Annexure-H which is taken by the petitioner indicates certain insertions in column Nos.4, 5 and 6, which are blank in Annexure-C. The said insertion indicates as if certain orders are passed in resuming the land in question to the Government and thereafter, granting it original grantees.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate fairly concedes that said insertion is illegal, which is a fake endorsement and with regard to same, no proceedings are initiated to substantiate the same. In fact, the learned Additional Government Advocate is not able to state under what authority and by whom the order mentioned in the record of right is passed indicating such insertion could be made in the record of right. He is also at loss of words and not even in a position to substantiate said insertion. He concedes that prima facie there is some mistake and so far as the authority of the person making such insertion is concerned, he would state that there is no supporting document for the same as he could gather from the office of the Tahsildar. This would clearly indicate that the insertions are pursuant to fake document. It is shocking that if the Government records are handled in this manner, safety of said records are very much in danger. Be that as it may.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court find that the insertions made in the record of right indicating that a portion of Sy.No.68/2 measuring 3 acres 25 guntas, which stood exclusively in the name of petitioner’s grand father is sought to be disturbed at largesse to some people who have no manner of right, title or interest to any portion of said land. Therefore, this Court would direct the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner to hold an enquiry in to the matter and pass appropriate orders by removing the entries inserted in record of right as well as Index of Land pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.68/2 of Parappana Agrahara village, Begur Hobli. While doing so, efforts are also to be made to identify the person who has erroneously inserted the entries in record of right and to initiate appropriate criminal prosecution against him.
7. Original record which is produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate is returned to him with a direction to file Xerox copy of the relevant portion of the entry at No.170 in the said book which bears No.FR.A.9147.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. The record which was summoned is secured through Mr.Jattappa, Record Keeper, Office of Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk. He is directed to affix his signature to the order sheet which is maintained in this writ petition, which shall be counter signed by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-