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.46466/2011(KLR-RES) BETWEEN SRI SYED NASIR HUSSAIN S/O IQBAL HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT No.52, HAINES ROAD, BANGALORE 560 005 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SACHIN.B.S, ADVOCATE) AND THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS CITY SURVEY (SOUTH ZONE) BANGALORE ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 01.08.2011 BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein has sought for quashing the notice dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) issued by the sole respondent – Joint Director of Land Records, City Survey (South Zone), Bengaluru, in proceedings No.CTS(B).suo motu. revision/2/2011-12.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of plot No.18 (CTS No.1060) in Sy. No.18 of Blackpalli village, Civil Station, Bengaluru, having purchased the same in three bits under three separate registered sale deeds dated 10.09.1986, 30.04.1987 and 01.03.2005 vide Annexures ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively, to the petition. Out of them, the first two sale deeds were executed by Smt. N. Jayalakshmi and the third sale deed was executed by the legal heirs of Smt. N. Jayalakshmi / Smt. Jayalakshmamma in favour of the petitioner.
3. The aforesaid revision proceedings are initiated at the instance of the Assistant Director of Land Records, City Survey, Division - 2, K.R. Circle, Bangalore. In the impugned notice, the respondent has referred to the order dated 08.03.2011 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.30976/2010 & 31231-31234/2010 (LB-BMP) preferred by Faraulla Khan (impleading applicant in I.A.No.16 filed in this petition) and the communication bearing No.APL(MSC)/56/07- 08 dated 03.03.2011 issued by the Commissioner, Department of Survey Settlement and Land Records, Bengaluru, on the basis of which, suo motu revision proceedings were initiated under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In the said proceedings, Enquiry officer, City Survey Division No.2, K.R. circle, Bengaluru, and Tahasildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. It is seen that various other persons in whose names the CTS numbers stated in the notice with reference to different portions of land in Sy. No.18 measuring 03 Acres 29 guntas situate in Bilekahalli village, kasaba hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, have been registered are arrayed as respondent Nos.3 to 29(b). The said notice was got published by the respondent-JDLR in Kannada Prabha, daily news paper, on 14.10.2011, copy of the said newspaper is at Annexure ‘N’ to the petition.
4. The respondent - Joint Director of Land Records (‘JDLR’, for brevity) by the impugned notice, has called upon the respondents including Smt.Jayalakshmamma (arrayed as respondent No.15), the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner herein, in the said suo motu revision proceedings to appear before him on 10.08.2011 at 3:00 p.m. with reference to an enquiry in respect of issuance of several P.T. Sheet numbers including 893 and various CTS numbers including 1060 insofar as they pertained to the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 29 guntas in the said Sy. No.18. The notice would indicate that in the records of the respondent - JDLR, the said land in Sy. No.18 is referred to as ‘Government kharab’.
5. The said notice is challenged in this writ petition on the premise that the respondent - Authority had no power to initiate proceedings suo motu by invoking Section 56 of the Act. The proceedings initiated by the respondent is barred by limitation prescribed under proviso to Section 56(3) of the Act as the City Survey Authority had confirmed ownership of Smt. Jayalakshmamma and allotted CTS No.1060 in P.T. sheet No.893 to her plot No.18 in Sy. No.18 in the year 1975 itself. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that property bearing CTS No.1060 does not fall within the extent of 03 Acres 29 guntas in Sy. No.18 of Bilekahalli village and notice in the revision proceedings was not issued to him. Hence, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned notice.
6. Before proceeding further, the facts leading to this petition preferred by Syed Nasir Hussain also should be looked into. It is seen that various CTS numbers referred to in Annexure ‘A’, the impugned notice, is in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 03 Acres 29 guntas in Sy. No.18 situate in Bilekahalli village as stated supra. The records maintained in the office of the respondent - JDLR indicate that the entire extent of 03 Acres 29 guntas in Sy. No.18 is tank bed of Bilekahalli and same was never assessed to revenue and there was no transaction of land being granted to anybody. In spite of the same, several persons mentioned in the impugned notice claim to have title to the said property.
7. Now, coming to the case of the petitioner, he claims to have purchased plot No.18 (CTS No.1060) in Sy. No.18 of Blackpalli village, Civil station, Bengaluru, under three different registered sale deeds dated 10.09.1986 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petition), 30.04.1987 (Annexure ‘C’ to the petition) and 01.03.2005 (Annexure ‘D’ to the petition). Out of them, the first two sale deeds were executed by Smt. N. Jayalakshmi in favour of the petitioner and the third sale deed was executed by the legal heirs of Smt. N. Jayalakshmi / Smt. Jayalakshmamma in favour of the petitioner. However, the schedule in the first sale deed (dated 10.09.1986) refers to shed forming portion of town site bearing No.324/18 (old No.8) situate in Thimmaiah Road, Corporation Division, old No.59, new division No.72, Bengaluru, with boundaries stated therein. The property sold under the second sale deed (dated 30.04.1987) is described as land forming portion of town site No.324/18 (old No.8) situate in Thimmaiah Road, Corporation division No.72, Bengaluru - 52, with boundaries mentioned therein. The subject-matter of the third sale deed (dated 01.03.2005) is vacant residential site being the western portion of property No.324/18 situate at Thimmaiah Road, Civil Station, in BBMP Ward No.78, Bangalore (earlier site being western portion of plot No.18, of Sy. No.18, Blackpally village, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore) with boundaries cited therein.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that his vendor, Smt. Jayalakshmamma, had acquired plot No.18 in Sy. No.18 of Blackpalli village by virtue of registered Will dated 24.11.1958 (Annexure ‘E’ to the petition) executed by her father, Narayanaswamy, in her favour. The City Survey Authority had allotted CTS No.1060 in P.T. sheet No.893 in respect of the said plot No.18. In that behalf, the petitioner has produced copy of extract of register maintained in the city survey office with reference to P.T. sheet No.893 vide Annexure ‘M’ to the petition and copy of P.T. sheet sketch vide Annexure ‘L’ to the petition. According to the petitioner, the said land originally belonged to Narayanaswamy and same was exempted from payment of land revenue and in that regard, he has produced Annexures ‘G’ and ‘H’, which are copies of order sheets in O.S. No.31/1974 on the file of Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, and Annexure ‘K’, copy of order dated 25.08.1955 passed in Revenue Appeal No.94- 96/54-55 by the Sub-Division Officer, Bangalore Sub-division. It is stated that the petitioner had rented portion of his property to one H. Manoharlal and subsequently, he filed eviction petition against the said tenant before the Small Causes Court and the eviction order passed by Small Causes Court was confirmed in HRRP No.1489/1994 disposed of on 24.06.1998 (Annexure ‘F’ to the petition).
9. However, it is seen that learned counsel for impleading applicant has filed application in I.A. No.1/2016. By way of the said application, Faraulla khan, the petitioner in W.P. Nos.30976/2010 and 31231-31234/2010, is seeking permission to get himself impleaded as one of the respondents in this petition claiming that he is the owner of the land measuring 03 Acres 29 guntas (CTS Nos.1051 to 1055) in Sy. No.18, Bilekahalli village, Queens Cross, Thimmaiah Road, Vasant Nagar, Bangalore-52. Along with the application, he has produced copy/ies of several documents including copy of application dated 13.06.2011 (vide Annexure ‘R2’ to I.A.
No.1/2016) filed by him in suo motu revision proceedings No.2/2011-12 before the respondent – JDLR., seeking permission to come on record as one of the contesting respondent Nos.4 and/or 8 in place of Lakshminarayanaswamy Charities / Lakshminarayanaswamy Charitable Trust, Queen’s Cross, Thimmaiah Road, Vasanthanagara, Bangalore-52.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed objections to the said application. Subsequently, the impleading applicant has filed additional statement of objections to the writ petition.
11. The records would indicate that other than writ petitions in W.P. Nos.30976/2010 and 31231 to 31234/2010 (LB-BMP) filed by Faraulla Khan before this Court, there was one more petition in W.P. No.11118/2006 (LB-BMP) filed by sri K. Venkatarathnam against the Commissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) and the Assistant Revenue Officer, BMP, seeking to quash the endorsement dated 16.01.2006, whereby his application for effecting change of khata in his name in respect of property No.324 situate in Thimmaiah Road, Ward No.78, Bengaluru, which property is said to have purchased by him from one R.N. Ramaiah under registered sale deed, was rejected by the respondent/s therein on the ground that the said property was the subject-matter of the suit in O.S. No.4413/2000 filed by M/s.Lakshminarayanaswamy Charities against the BCC Commissioner before the Court of City Civil and Sessions Judge. A coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 05.12.2006, allowed the said writ petition by quashing the endorsement dated 16.01.2006.
12. It is seen that W.P. Nos.30976/2010 and 31231 to 31234/2010 were filed by Faraulla Khan (impleading applicant in I.A. No.1/2016 in this petition) challenging the endorsement dated 13.10.2009 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Vasanthanagara sub-division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short), Bengaluru, and for direction to the respondent/s to issue khata certificate in respect of site Nos.1 to 5 of Sy. No.18 situate in Bilekahalli village, kasaba hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in his favour.
12.1 In the said writ petitions, the petitioner – Faraulla Khan contended that his grandfather (Syed Ghouse Saheb) was granted an extent of 03 Acres 29 guntas of land in Bilekahalli village by the erstwhile State of Mysore and the name of his grandfather was entered in the dharkhast register and RTCs., were also issued in his name. After the death of his grandfather on 17.12.1979, the land was succeeded by his father, Syed Rafiuddin. The petitioner stated that he acquired title to the said property by virtue of registered gift deed executed by his father, Syed Rafiuddin, in his favour. He made an application before the respondent – authorities for entering his name in the khata register in respect of five sites in Sy. No.18. The Assistant Revenue Officer, by his endorsement dated 31.10.2007, held that in the light of pendency of the suit in O.S. No.4413/2000 filed by M/s.Lakshminarayanaswamy Charities against the BCC Commissioner, the question of considering the application filed by the petitioner – Faraulla Khan for change of khata did not arise.
12.2 Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, Faraulla Khan preferred writ petition in W.P. No.6539/2008 before this Court. It is seen that coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 03.08.2009, quashed the endorsement dated 31.10.2007 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer and directed the respondents – authorities to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for registration of khata in accordance with law.
12.3 After remand, the Assistant Revenue Officer reconsidered the application of the petitioner – Faraulla Khan and issued the endorsement dated 13.10.2009 reiterating his earlier stand that khata in respect of site Nos.1 to 5 in Sy. No.18 could not be transferred to his name on the premise that the property in Sy.No.18 and other properties in Sy. Nos.16, 19 and 25 belonged to BBMP and in respect of land in Sy. No.18, original suit in O.S. No.4413/2000 filed by M/s. Lakshminarayanaswamy Charities as against BBMP / BCC Commissioner was pending consideration before the City Civil Court. The subsequent endorsement dated 13.10.2009 issued by Assistant Revenue Officer was called in question by Faraulla Khan in writ petitions in W.P Nos.30976/2010 and 31231- 31234/2010. A coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the said writ petitions has followed the order dated 05.12.2006 passed by another coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.11118/2006 and has observed as under:
9. Having regard to the contentions of both sides and on perusal of the material on record, it becomes clear that the endorsement dated 31/10/2007 issued to the petitioner on the application made for transfer of petitioner’s name in the katha register in respect of five sites in which reference to O.S.4413/2000 filed by M/s.Lakshminarayana Charitable Trust, is made by the respondent – B.B.M.P., was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.6539/2008 by order dated 3/8/2009 and a direction was issued to the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s application for registration of katha and to pass the orders in accordance with law. The respondent – BBMP has reconsidered the petitioner’s application and has referred to not only Sy.No.18 but in respect of Sy.Nos.16, 19 and 25 which properties belong to BBMP and that there is also a suit pending in O.S.No.4413/2000, a copy of the plaint in the said suit is also furnished by the respondent – BBMP along with its statement of objections and a memo. The schedule in the said plaint also pertains to Sy.No.18, measuring 364 feet East to West and 185 feet North to South. Despite the pendency of the said suit, in W.P.No.11118/2006, disposed of by this Court on 5/12/2006, while referring to endorsement dated 16/1/2006 as per Annexure “J” issued to the petitioner in the said case, wherein, it was stated that the property No.324 was the subject matter of O.S.No.4413/2000 and merely because a suit was pending in respect of property No.324, BBMP could not claim that the entire survey number belonged to it in as much as there was no application of mind by the authorities as to whether the property of the petitioner in that case fell within the boundary of schedule of O.S.No.4413/2000 and as to whether the said property belong to the Corporation. Under the circumstances, this Court opined as follows:-
“2. A perusal of the endorsement Annexure-J discloses non-application of mind by the authorities, failure to assign reasons and findings to arrive at the conclusion that the property in question did fall within the boundaries of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.4413/2000 and that the entire suit schedule property belongs to the Corporation. The intriguing question is, if the property did belong to the Corporation, what was the need to transfer the khata of the said property in favour of the petitioner’s vendor by the very same Corporation? This question remains unanswered.
3. The Corporation having considered the fact that the vendor of the petitioner did have a title over the property in question was entitled to be registered as a khatedar of the said property. It must as of a necessity follow that the subsequent purchaser viz., the petitioner, is entitled to have his name substituted as khatedar in respect of the property purchased. If the Corporation claims that it is the owner of the said property, it is needless to state that its title to the said property will have to be established in a properly instituted suit and not by making an executive order of by assigning a reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for transfer of khata.
4. It is well settled law that issuing of khata is only an executive act and the substitution of the name of the petitioner as khatedar of the property in question would not confer any title in favour of the petitioner, but is indicative of possession and obligatory on his part to pay the taxes in respect of the property in question.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the representation of the petitioner would be re-considered and a reasoned order passed, recording findings and conclusions over the claim of the petitioner in the matter of transfer of khata of the property in question.
6. Even otherwise, the endorsement Annexure ‘J’, being cryptic, a non-speaking order, dehors reasons, cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny and hence unsustainable.”
10. Having stated thus, a direction was issued to the Corporation to substitute the name of the petitioner therein as kathedar in question, without prejudice to the claim of title of the Corporation over the property in question and subject to the Corporation establishing its title in a properly instituted legal proceeding. While quashing the endorsement dated 16/1/2006 issued to the petitioner in the said case, the operative portion of the order reads as under:-
“7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 16.1.2006, Annexure-J is quashed. Although the petitioner has not sought for quashing of the endorsement dated 4.8.2005, Annexure-E, the same is quashed on account of quashing of the endorsement Annexure-J. The Corporation is directed to substitute the name of the petitioner as the kathedar of the property in question, and issue a certificate without prejudice to the claim of title of the Corporation over the property in question and subject to the Corporation establishing its title in a properly instituted legal proceeding.”
11. In the impugned Annexure, which is the endorsement dated 13/10/2009, once again a reference is made to O.S.4413/2000 and the only change that occurs in the impugned endorsement is that Sy.Nos.16, 19 and 25 are also referred in the said endorsement by stating that in view of the pendency of the original suit filed by M/s.Lakshminarayana Charitable Trust as against BBMP and the said survey number belong to BBMP, khata cannot be transferred in the name of the petitioner.
12. The reasoning given by this Court in W.P.No.11118/2006 is squarely applicable to the present case also in as much as the endorsement dated 13/10/2009 only reiterates what has been stated in the endorsement dated 31/10/2007 issued earlier to the petitioner and which has been quashed by this Court. Therefore, the direction which has been given by this Court in W.P.No.11118/2006 could be given in the case of the petitioner also. However, the submission of the Government Pleader is that an enquiry has been initiated with regard to genuineness of the grant dated 18/7/1955 and therefore, under the circumstances, the petitioner who is claiming on the strength of the said grant certificate and in the absence of there being any other document of title in respect of the site Nos.1 to 5 in Sy.No.18, the respondent – authorities cannot be directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the katha register. Hence a direction is given to the State – respondent No.3 that the enquiry initiated as against the validity of the grant certificate must be concluded as expeditiously as possible, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. In the meanwhile, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to entering the name of the petitioner in the katha register, without reference to the pendency of O.S.No.4413/2000 between M/s.Lakshminarayana Charitable Trust and the B.B.M.P. and keeping in mind the direction and observations made in W.P.No.11118/2006 disposed of on 5/12/2006 13. In view of the above, the endorsement dated 13/10/2009 at Annexure “R” is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part.
13. It is seen that based on the observations made by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.30976/2010 and 31231 to 31234/2010, the revision proceedings were initiated before the respondent herein at the instance of the Government represented by the Assistant Director of Land Records. The Committee, which was constituted to conduct enquiry with reference to the manipulation of records said to have done in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.18, Bilekahalli village, has directed the respondent herein to furnish the particulars regarding the transactions, which took place in changing the ownership of the land from Government kharab in favour of several persons under different CTS numbers mentioned in the impugned notice. It is in this background that enquiry is sought to be conducted by the respondent - JDLR to find out the rights of the respondent Nos.3 to 29(b) in the said revision proceedings in whose names various CTS numbers referred to in the impugned notice have been registered.
14. It is stated that CTS No.1060 assigned to the property belonging to the petitioner herein is also referred to in the impugned notice and his vendor, Smt.Jayalakshmamma, who is no more, was arrayed as respondent No.15 and she was called upon to appear before the second respondent and participate in the enquiry, which was scheduled to be conducted on 10.08.2011 at 3:00 p.m. by producing the relevant records before the said Authority.
15. Perusal of the order sheet maintained in this petition would indicate that a coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order dated 16.12.2011, had stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) till further orders. Thereafter, the said interim order was extended by orders dated 16.07.2018 and 05.09.2018 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court.
16. Heard the learned senior counsel, Sri P.S. Rajagopal, appearing on behalf of Sri B.S. Sachin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahantesh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - JDLR.
17. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would try to assert that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 56 of the Act is baseless inasmuch as the power vested in the said Authority under Section 56 of the Act could not have been invoked beyond the period of three years from the date (25.06.1975 ) of allotment of CTS No.1060 in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, Smt. Jayalakshmi / Smt. N. Jayalakshmamma. Further, it is contended that there is no scope for initiating the proceedings suo motu in challenging the revenue entries which are already made in the land records. He contended that the property purchased by the petitioner is not at all relatable to the grant certificate dated 18.07.1955 said to have been issued in favour of the grandfather of Mr. Faraulla Khan, who is the petitioner in W.P. Nos.30976/2010 and 31231-31234/2010, which were disposed of by coordinate Bench of this Court on 08.03.2011 inter alia with a direction to the State to conclude the enquiry initiated as against the validity of the said grant certificate as expeditiously as possible after giving an opportunity to the petitioner therein of being heard. It is further contended that the property purchased by the petitioner has no connection either to the property involved in W.P. No.11118/2006, which was disposed of by coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.12.2006 or to the plaint schedule property in O.S. No.4413/2000 filed by Laskhminarayanaswamy Charities against B.C.C. Commissioner and two others and which is pending consideration before the Court of City Civil and Sessions Judge. Learned senior counsel further contended that when the title of the petitioner in respect of the petition property is not traceable to the subject-matter of the aforesaid grant, the action of the respondent – JDLR., in issuing notice to Smt. Jayalakshmamma (respondent No.15 in suo motu revision proceedings), the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, calling upon her to participate in the enquiry itself is erroneous and would be burdensome to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel in order to substantiate his line of arguments would rely upon two judgments rendered by the Apex Court and a judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court.
18. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the impugned notice is not sustainable in the eye of law in the absence of details being furnished in the said notice, would rely upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 105. It is seen that in the said judgment, the Apex Court was dealing with the question of law pertaining to the form and content of show cause notice that was required to be served before deciding as to whether the appellant therein was to be blacklisted or not. In the said appeals, the question that came up for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether it was a mandatory requirement that there had to be a stipulation contained in the show cause notice that action of blacklisting was proposed? If yes, then was it permissible to discern it from the reading of the impugned show cause notice, even when not specifically mentioned, that the appellant understood that it was about the proposed action of blacklisting that could be taken against him?. The relevant paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of the said judgment read as under:
21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults the has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action.
22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show-cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent. However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz;
(i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action ;
(ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit.
We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice but it can clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.”
19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the notice issued by the respondent – JDLR is without any jurisdiction and as such the same is not sustainable in the eye of law, has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Chief of Army Staff and others vs. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety reported in (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 412. It is seen that in the said matter, the respondent was a permanent commissioned officer of the Indian Army and he was tried by a general court martial on certain charges. The court martial on considering the evidence found the respondent not guilty of all the charges. The GOC, M.P. Bihar and Orissa Area, who was the confirming authority, instead of confirming the verdict sent back the finding for revision. The same general court martial after hearing both the sides and considering the observations of the GOC once again found the respondent not guilty of all the charges. The GOC reserved confirmation of the finding on revision by a superior authority viz. GOC-in-C, Central Command, who did not confirm the finding. The charges made against the respondent, the finding and the non-confirmation thereof were promulgated as required by Rule 71 of the Army Rules. Thereafter, the Chief of the Army Staff issued a notice under rule 14 of the Army Rules stating that he, being satisfied that a fresh trial by a court martial was inexpedient, was of the opinion that the respondent’s misconduct as disclosed in the proceedings rendered his further retention in the service undesirable and calling upon him to submit his explanation and defence, if any, within 25 days of the receipt of the said notice. The respondent preferred writ petition before the High Court and the said writ petition came to be allowed. The apex Court was dealing with the appeal by special leave granted by the said Court preferred against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Apex Court held that the action of the Chief of the Army Staff in issuing the impugned notice was neither without jurisdiction nor unwarranted in law and the relevant para No.5 of the said judgment reads as under:
“5. The same contentions, as were raised before the High Court, were taken before us at the hearing of this appeal. We will first deal with the appellants’ preliminary objection that the respondent’s writ petition was not maintainable as being premature. It was the respondent’s case that the Chief of the Army Staff had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice after he had been again found not guilty by the court-martial on revision. The said notice expressly stated that the Chief of the Army Staff was of the opinion that the Respondent’s misconduct as disclosed in the proceedings rendered his further retention in service undesirable and asked him to submit his explanation and defence, if any, to the charges made against him. If the Respondent’s contention with respect to the jurisdiction of the Chief of the Army Staff to issue the said notice were correct, the Respondent was certainly exposed to the jeopardy of having his explanation and defence rejected and he being removed or dismissed from services. Were the said notice issued without jurisdiction, the respondent would have then suffered a grave, prejudicial injury by an act which was without jurisdiction. Where the threat of a prejudicial action is wholly without jurisdiction, a person cannot be asked to wait for the injury to be caused to him before seeking the Court’s protection. If, on the other hand, the Chief of the Army Staff had the power in law to issue the said notice, it would not be open to the respondent to approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage of notice only and in such an event his writ petition could be said to be premature. This was, however, not a contention which could have been decided at the threshold until the court had come to a finding with respect to the jurisdiction of the Chief of the Army Staff to issue the impugned notice. Having held that the impugned notice was issued without any jurisdiction, the High Court was right in further holding that the respondent’s writ petition was not premature and was maintainable.”
20. Now, coming to the question of limitation, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of M.Ramakrishnappa vs. The Deputy Director of Land Records and another reported in ILR 2007 Kar 769. In the said decision, coordinate Bench of this Court considering the provisions of Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, has observed that Revenue officer or a Survey Officer referred to under sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Act could initiate suo motu proceedings within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised and if such power were to be exercised 19 years after the durast work, the same was held as barred by time.
21. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would try to support the notice on the premise that the subject matter of the dispute between the Government and various persons claiming title to several bits of land as per CTS numbers stated in the impugned notice is in respect of Government kharab land bearing Sy. No.18 measuring 03 Acres 29 guntas, which was earlier tank bed of Bilekahalli. According to him, the revenue records maintained in the office of the respondent as well as the other authorities would indicate that the title of the Government in respect of the aforesaid land was not divested in favour of any person at any point of time and the same was not the subject matter of grant as claimed by the petitioner in W.P. Nos.30976/2010 and 31231 to 31234/2010 and petitioner in W.P.No.11118/2006, who are successors to various bits of property having CTS numbers presently registered in their name. In addition to that, learned Additional Government Advocate would also bring to the notice of this Court that CTS No.1060, which is given to the property purchased by the petitioner herein is also falling within the boundaries of 03 Acres 29 guntas of land in Sy. No.18 of Bilekahalli village. Though the petitioner is not claiming title under the grant certificate (dated 18.07.1955) which is referred to by the petitioner in W.P. Nos.30976/2010 and 31231-31234/2010 – Sri Faraulla Khan, nevertheless the title which is claimed by him is traceable to Smt.Jayalakshmamma/Smt.N.Jayalakshmi, who is arrayed as respondent No.15 in the suo motu revision proceedings before the respondent, and her title / title of her legal heirs with reference to land bearing CTS No.1060 is to be ascertained. However, it is stated that the correctness or otherwise of the sale deeds dated 10.09.1986, 30.04.1987 and 01.03.2005 vide Annexures ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively to the petition, which have been executed in favour of the petitioner by Smt. N. Jayalakshmi /legal heirs of Smt.N.Jayalakshmi, which have come into place, are required to be looked into. He further contended that in the fact situation, the question of limitation does not arise as it is apparent that various persons by their fraudulent acts are claiming title to Government kharab land, which was earlier a portion of tank bed of Bilekahalli. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner herein to claim that the revision proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 56 of the Act are barred by limitation.
22. Learned Additional Government Advocate also tried to draw strength from the judgment dated 08.03.2011 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.30976/2010 and 31231-31234/2010, wherein it is specifically observed in para No.12 of the order that an enquiry had been initiated with regard to genuineness of the grant dated 18/07/1955 in respect of the land in Sy. No.18 of Bilekahalli village.
23. After giving careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court is of the considered opinion that the genuineness of the title of persons, who are shown as respondent Nos.3 to 29(b) in suo motu revision proceedings before the respondent - JDLR, in respect of the Government kharab land namely, land bearing Sy. No.18 of Bilekahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, is required to be ascertained in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent in the light of observations made in the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court dated 08.03.2011 in W.P. Nos.30976/2010 and 31231 to 31234/2010.
24. It is also seen that a Committee is constituted in that behalf consisting of officers of seven departments headed by Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, State of Karnataka. One of the members of the Committee is Assistant Director of Land Records, who has to pursue the enquiry and conclude it as expeditiously as possible as per the direction dated 08.03.2011 issued by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.30976/2010 and 31231 to 31234/2010. The head of the Committee, Additional Chief Secretary, has directed his subordinate officer, namely, the respondent herein, to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of the CTS entries by giving an opportunity to the persons in whose name the said properties are standing. It is in this background that Annexure ‘A’, notice dated 01.08.2011 is issued by the respondent. In fact, the exercise which is undertaken by the respondent - JDLR and other members of the Committee is to ensure that the principles of natural justice is followed before deciding as to whether the CTS numbers referred to in the notice pertain to the property/ies falling within the extent of 03 Acres 29 guntas of tank bed area of Bilekahalli village, Bengaluru North Taluk. At the same time, there is also an effort on the part of the respondent as well as the other authorities, who are part of the said Committee, to ascertain as to whether at any point of time any proceedings had taken place to divest the title of the Government in respect of the said extent of land measuring 03 Acres 29 guntas in favour of various persons, who are claiming title with regard to several CTS numbers mentioned in the said notice. As could be seen from the records, those people, who are claiming title to the property measuring 03 Acres 29 guntas in Sy. No.18 are given notice by the respondent in the said suo motu revision proceedings.
25. When the entire records are looked into, it is clearly seen that the said exercise on the part of the respondent in ascertaining as to whether the change of title in respect of land in Sy. No.18 of Bilekahalli village to the name of various persons is with or without authority of the Government can be looked into at any point of time, more particularly when there are allegations of fraud against some people in getting the entries registered in their names. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of limitation will fade into oblivion.
26. In this background, the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in M. Ramakrishnappa’s case referred supra is not helpful to the petitioner in the present case as the said judgment was rendered under different set of facts and same cannot be inappropriately applied to the present set of facts where the accusations and allegations is mainly relate to fraudulent acts said to have committed by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner herein and other similarly placed persons, who are respondent Nos.3 to 29(b) in the revision proceedings.
27. Similarly, the other two judgments of the Apex Court in matters of Gorkha Secruity Services and Chief of Army Staff and Others (referred supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are not helpful to the petitioner in this proceedings inasmuch as the authority of the respondent in this proceedings is emanating from certain instructions given to him by superior authority/ies to initiate suo motu revision proceedings, which is permissible under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The entire exercise has been undertaken with a view to ascertain as to whether any fraudulent act has been committed by some persons / respondents in the revision proceedings in divesting the Government property to the benefit of several persons. In the present set of facts, the petitioner may be innocent of committing any fraudulent act by himself. Even otherwise, he could also be a victim of fraudulent act, where he could have purchased the property from a person, who never had title to the same. When admittedly, the property in question is a Government kharab unless flow of title with reference to the land in question in favour of Smt.Jayalakshmamma/ Smt.N.Jayalakshmi, the vendor of the petitioner herein and other similarly placed persons is established, their title to the property cannot be accepted as concluded title and the revenue entries on which they are relying upon cannot also be accepted. Petitioner cannot contend that the said entries are not amenable to revision on the ground of limitation and other technical objections.
28. Hence, in this background this Court would hold that the impugned notice issued to the vendor of the petitioner and other persons in proceedings No.CTS(B)/ suo motu revision/2/2011-12 cannot be quashed and same is to be proceeded with by the respondent by holding an enquiry not only against the petitioner’s vendor but against the other persons who are claiming title to various bits of lands under CTS numbers mentioned in the notice in respect of Sy. No.18 situate in Bilekahalli village. In fact, pendency of this writ petition and original suit in O.S. No.4413/2000, which are stalling the enquiry may lead to a situation where even if enquiry is done, after some time, the Government may not be in a position to recover the land. Therefore, if the impugned notice is quashed, it would be nothing but an attempt of the Court in strengthening the hands of persons, who are said to have fraudulently created documents and cheated various persons including the petitioner herein.
29. In that view of the matter, this Court hold that the question of interfering with the impugned notice does not arise and this petition does not merit consideration.
30. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to appear before the respondent - Authority and submit documents, which are available with him to substantiate his title to the property in question (CTS No.1060) with reference to survey No.18 of Bilekahalli village. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the respondent – Joint Director of Land Records.
31. In view of the writ petition being disposed of, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration. At this juncture, it is noticed that it is strange that the applicant in I.A. No.1/2016 – Farulla Khan, who wants to get impleaded as a contesting respondent in this proceedings, is not a party in the suo motu revision proceedings before the respondent. It is stated that the Faraulla Khan has filed an impleading application before the respondent herein. Therefore, this Court while dismissing his application in I.A. No.1/2016 would direct the respondent to implead him as party to the revision proceedings and thereafter, proceed with the matter in accordance with law. It is stated that Smt. Jayalakshmamma, who was arrayed as respondent No.15 in the revision proceedings, has expired. Her legal heirs are required to be brought on record in the revision proceedings.
32. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma