IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.4860 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, BENGALURU CITY.
2. THE TAHSILDAR CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI JOSEPH SON OF YOKUB, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.25, YALAPATI, CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101 CHICKBALLAPUR.
2. SMT. NIRMALAMMA WIFE OF JAYARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDIANG AT GUNDLU GURKEY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101 CHICKBALLAPUR.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.V. KRISHNAPPA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.23523-23524 OF 2015 IT IS PRAYED TO INTERFERES WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY COURT BELOW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14-8-2015, passed in Writ Petition Nos.23523-23524 of 2015 allowing the writ petitions and issuing a mandamus to the respondent No.2 therein to restore the names of the petitioners therein in the revenue records from the year 2000 onwards and to issue certified copy of the RTC pahani, the State is in appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. That the learned Single Judge failed to consider the material on record. Finally a representation was made to modify the deletion of the petitioners’ name. The same could not have been allowed. In support whereof an affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar, Chikkaballapura, enclosing 7 documents 1 to 7.
3. Counsel for the respondents is absent. He was absent on previous three dates, that is on 21-10-2019, 26-11-2019 and 27-11-2019.
4. We have considered the affidavit of the Tahsildar. He has narrated the manner in which the proceedings have ensued. He has stated that on verification of the records, the documents produced by the writ petitioners vide Annexure-A to the writ petition are all fabricated. In the year 1974-1975 since as on that date the Land Grant Committee did not exist, the Saguvali chits produced are created ones. That MR No:3/1982- 1983 produced by the writ petitioners vide Annexure-D, and the subsequent entries are all inserted. They are fabricated. It is for this reason that their names were deleted from the records.
5. We have considered the affidavit in depth as well as the documents. The same runs contrary to the plea of the petitioners. The documents produced by them along with the writ petitions are all created documents. They are not a true reflection of the records as produced before the learned Single Judge through the affidavit of the Tahsildar. In view of the falsity of the claim no relief could be granted. Unfortunately, none of these facts were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. What was alone pleaded was that the request for deletion requires to be considered. We have no hesitation to hold that if these material were produced before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitions would have been dismissed. In view of the affidavit and the additional documents filed, the writ appeal is allowed.
1) The order dated 14-8-2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition Nos.23523-23524 of 2015 are set aside.
2) The writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-