IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.30652/2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU.
(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) AND:
1. SRI. RANGADHAMA SHETTY MAJOR NO.57/4, 7TH MAIN ROAD RAJEEVA NAGAR 6TH BLOCK 4TH PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK – 560 085.
2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALURU SOUTH DIVISION BENGALURU – 560 085.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-2 DATED:12.12.2017 VIDE ANNESURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for petitioners-State. Perused records.
2. Order dated 12.12.2017 passed by second respondent dropping the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and ordering for mutating the name of first respondent in the revenue records to an extent of 5 Acres in Sy.No.107 of B.M.Kaval, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, is under challenge.
3. It is the contention of Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for petitioners-State that second respondent without calling for records and scrutinizing the documents, has passed the impugned order and photocopies of records produced by first respondent before second respondent are all fabricated and inadmissible and there was no other record available before second respondent to drop the proceedings to direct the jurisdictional revenue authorities to continue to show the name of first respondent in the revenue records. Hence, he seeks for allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.
4. Special Tahsildar , Kengeri Hobli, submitted a report on 14.05.2014 by doubting the claim of ownership of property claimed by first respondent over the subject land. Hence, proceedings came to be initiated against first respondent and upon issuance of notice, he has appeared through his learned counsel, filed documents asserting that property in question belongs to him. Special Deputy Commissioner has visited the record room of Office of Tahsildar, South on 15.11.2017 and having heard the matter has arrived at a conclusion that first respondent has title to the property and as such has dropped the proceedings. As could be seen from impugned order, ownership claimed by first respondent over the said land was based on O.M. dated 04.06.1951 and the then Amaldar by Order No.303/50-51 had bifurcated the entire Sy.No.107 into 13 blocks and block No.13 was put into auction, of which first respondent herein was declared as successful bidder and to evidence this fact, auction register, which was available in the office records of the Tahsildar, has been verified by second respondent and found entries in said register would evidence the fact of successful bidder i.e., first respondent having affixed his signature.
5. In fact, Deputy Commissioner has noticed that based on the order of Amaldar the then Assistant Commissioner had examined the issue and in the proceedings B.Y.P.R.189/51-52 by order dated 05.05.1952 had accepted the same and ordered for mutating the revenue records in the name of successful bidder. In fact, all other revenue records which was available in the record room of Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk has been scrutinized, examined and found by the Special Deputy Commissioner to be genuine and as such he has ordered for dropping of the proceedings initiated against petitioners. There being no infirmity either on facts or in law having been committed by second respondent, question of interfering with the said order does not arise.
6. It is also to be noticed that time and again this Court has held that where authorities were to initiate proceedings for setting aside the order of grant or annulling mutation proceedings, which entries had been caused long number of years ago, they should be slow, until and unless there is any genuine ground like that of fraud having been perpetrated on the revenue authorities. In the instant case, claim of first respondent to the land in question having been based on an auction proceedings held in the year 1950-51 and records of then Amaldar also disclosing such auction having taken place and incidentally original register relating to auction proceedings being available in the record room of Tahsildar of Bangalore South Taluk also having been scrutinized by Deputy Commissioner and entries were found to be true and correct, initiation of proceedings after long number of years i.e., after 45 years from the date of grant was not called for. Thus, both on the issue of there being inordinate delay in initiating proceedings for cancellation of grant and there being no justification for such proceedings being initiated at this length of time, as also on merits, petition lacked merit. Hence, it stands rejected without being admitted or notice being issued.
SD/-
JUDGE RU