IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.NOs.20298-299/2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI.R.VENKATESHAPPA S/O BANAJIGARA RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO.10, GOVINDASHETTY PALYA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU-560100 2. SRI.Y.VENKATAPPA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 068 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI LOKESH D S, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2 BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 5. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 6. M/S SUPER CYBER TECH PARK (PVT) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, NO.60/1, 2ND CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5, SRI R PHANEENDRA, SR. COUNSEL BY HEGDE AND RAO FOR SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-3 PERTAINS TO THE ORDER DTD:15.12.2017 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:15.12.2017 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-
3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE LAND MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 20 GUNTAS BELONGS TO THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 2 ACRE OF LAND BELONGS TO THE 2ND PETITIONER SITUATED IN SY NO.11 OF DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners herein are respondent Nos.1 and 32 in proceedings bearing No.RRT(2)(S)CR 32/2000-01 C/w 102/08-09 C/w 03/15-16 C/w RRT(S)CR 255/2012-13 dated 15.12.2017 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner-2, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bengaluru.
2. Admittedly, the aforesaid proceedings was initiated not only against the petitioners-1 and 2 herein, but also against another 32 persons at the instance of the Tahsildar of Bengaluru South Taluk. The said proceedings is pursuant to reference for enquiry under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short ‘Act’) which is on the basis that original order of grant is not furnished by 34 respondents in the orders impugned to land bearing Sy.No.11 measuring to an extent of 29 acres 39 guntas of Doddanagamangala village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
3. The petitioners herein are two of the respondents in the order impugned, who claimed ownership to an extent of 01 acre 20 guntas and an extent of 02 acres in the said Sy.No.11 of Doddnagamangala village. According to the 1st petitioner, the aforesaid land was granted to him on 31.07.1979 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he would claim that the grant of 02 acres in his name was on 12.01.1979. The grievance of the petitioners is that when they approached the aforesaid authorities for registering their name in the mutation register based on the grant certificate available with them, the same was not accepted and the genuineness of the said document was doubted. Hence, the matter was referred to enquiry before the Special Deputy Commissioner in proceedings under Section 136 (3) of the Act. Initially, the order passed in aforesaid proceedings in the first round of enquiry was subject matter of challenge before this Court in batch of writ petitions commencing from WP Nos.13431-13444/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) C/w WP Nos.5831/2012 & 5871/2012, 41318-41319/2011, 7638-7639/2012 & 10885-10900/2012 (vide Annexure-K). In the said petitions, the first petitioner herein viz. R.V.Venkateshappa was the petitioner in WP Nos.5831/2012 & 5871/2012.
4. So far as 2nd petitioner-Y.Venkatappa @ Venkataramanappa is concerned, he was not party to the proceedings challenging the earlier round of reference to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. However, he had filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7071/12 & 7218/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) in challenging the impugned order dated 23.07.2011 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, contending he did not have competency to pass the impugned order. The said writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5831/2012 & 5871/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) filed by the 1st petitioner was clubbed with batch matters commencing from W.P.Nos.13431-13444/2012. The said matters were allowed and remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 11.12.2012 whereas the writ petitions filed by the 2nd petitioner in W.P. Nos.7071/12 & 7218/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2013. The 1st petitioner and others challenged the order of remand by filing one more writ petition in WP Nos.37563- 583/2014 which was disposed of with a direction to the Special Deputy Commissioner to conclude the remanded proceedings within certain time limit. The 2nd petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order of this Court in W.P. Nos.7071/2012 & 7218/2012 (KLR- RR/SUR) filed an appeal in WA No.5749/2013. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal vide order dated 21.07.2015 remanding the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration.
5. The petitioners herein approached the Special Deputy Commissioner and produced all relevant documents. The Special Deputy Commissioner after looking into the material available on record noticed that the documents relied upon by the petitioners to demonstrate that 01 acre 20 guntas was granted in favour of the 1st petitioner and 02 acres in favour of the 2nd petitioner in Sy.No.11 of Doddanagamangala village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, could not be established by themselves. It is in this background, the order impugned dated 23.07.2011 was passed in rejecting their prayer to register them as owners of the aforesaid extent of land in the RTC. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed writ petitions and this Court had granted interim order of stay till the disposal of the writ petitions.
6. Be that as it may, what is required to be seen in these writ petitions now is whether the grant which is claimed by the petitioners is genuine or otherwise. As contended by the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the transaction, this Court directed the Tahsildar of Bangalore South Taluk to produce all the original documents with reference to the alleged grant made in favour of petitioners-1 and 2, who relied upon Annexure-C and E1 as the Grant Certificates which are issued (found at page 47 & 55 of this writ petition) to demonstrate that grant was made in their favour where they would demonstrate that in proceedings bearing No.LND(3)SR 217/78-79 dated 31.01.1979 the first petitioner has secured the grant of 1 acre 20 guntas from the then Tahsildar-S.A.Wajid, Bengaluru South Taluk and the 2nd petitioner has secured grant of 02 acres in the same proceedings dated 12.01.1979 from the very same Tahsildar-S.A.Wajid and according to them, the Certificate of Grant of Saguvali Chit in Form No.4 is issued in favour of the 1st petitioner on 21.06.1979 and in Form No.4 issued to the 2nd petitioner, only year is clearly visible which is written as Dated this ..1……..day of 1979. The correctness or otherwise of the documents is to be seen comparing it with the original records. Therefore, original records are secured in these proceedings with reference to LNDU2 217/78-79, which is not with reference to grant in favour of either petitioner No.1 or petitioner No.2.
7. Learned AGA would produce the Saguvali Chit Distribution Register for the year 65-66 and 79-80 where on the left side of page 52, this Court would notice at Sl.No.26/79-80 there is tampering of the records with reference to LND (3) SR 217/78-79 where the village name is tampered and the extent which is claimed by the petitioners-1 and 2 are inserted and the name of the beneficiary is shown as ‘Ganagappa S/o Kuppaiah’. Even in that column also, the name of the petitioners are not seen. Thereby, it is seen that the original record itself is tampered. When the same is looked into, it is clear that the page which is of the year 1979 is in a different ink and the correction with reference to LND 217/78-79 is in different ink. In fact, in the original record the case number is not 217 (as seen in LND...217/78-79), it is something else. The first word which is in numerical number has been erased and inserted as ‘2’ . Having failed to alter the same, below that LNDu2 217/78-79 is inserted in different ink. While doing so, in the column where the names of the grantees are required to be shown, name of one Ganagappa S/o Kuppaiah is shown as grantee to an extent of 04 acres 20 guntas and 04 acres, which is subsequently corrected to show as 01 acre 20 guntas and 2 acres in Col.No.6. Next to the said column, while doing so earlier entries are scratched, which would clearly demonstrate that the corrected entries are not verified with the signature of the Tahsildar, who is said to have issued Certificate of Grant of Saguvali Chit (Annexure-C and E1).
8. With reference to the signature of Mr.Wajid as seen in the said document when compared to the original signature of Wajid as seen in the records available in the office of the Tahsildar the same is different from the signature on the documents relied upon by the petitioners in Form No.7 issued to them. The signature of Wajid in the said document and his signature in the original record are different, thereby giving clear indication that the documents which are relied upon by the petitioners are fraudulent and fake. Therefore, entertaining these writ petitions to consider the correctness or otherwise of the order of the 3rd respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner-2, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru, does not arise for consideration.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed with cost. While doing so, this Court would direct the Tahsildar of the Bengaluru South Taluk, who is present before this Court to take necessary steps for initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 192A of the Act for manipulation of records and relying upon the same to secure the mutation entries in their name. In addition, Cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on each of the petitioners, which shall be deposited before this Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the cost is not paid, the registry is directed to ensure that these petitioners are arrested and sent to civil prison until cost is recovered from them.
Sd/- JUDGE TL