IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.26805 OF 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 ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL. ...PETITIONERS (By Sri Y.D.HARSHA, AGA) AND:
1. SMT. SAKRI BAI W/O KABBALANAYAKA AGE : MAJOR MYSOORAMMANA DODDI VILLAGE INDLUVAADI POST, ANEKAL TALUK – 562 106.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU – 560 009.
...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, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU DATED 23.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-‘A’.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R First respondent herein claim title to the property bearing Sy.No.54/P5 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Kaadujakkanahalli, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District by virtue of grant made under Darkasth Rules, by order of grant dated 08.07.1994. Second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 67(2) and 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and by order dated 12.10.2009 held that grant records relied upon by petitioner is doubtful. Being aggrieved by same, respondents approached this Court in W.P.No.27084 of 2014 which came to be disposed of with a direction to the Special Deputy Commissioner to grant opportunity to the first respondent herein. Since it was pleaded before passing order dated 12.10.2009, opportunity has not been extended. Pursuant to same, proceeding was reinitiated by second respondent or in other words, proceedings came to be revived on account of the memo filed by first respondent on 10.08.2016. First respondent herein appeared before Special Deputy Commissioner and filed objections along with documents in support of claim over subject land. Tahsildar filed a report before second respondent along with the records and after considering oral arguments submitted by the first respondent herein, second respondent dropped the proceedings and directed the Tahsildar to mutate the revenue records in the name of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition by State.
2. It is the contention of the Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that second respondent has purportedly passed an order without application of mind. He would also contend that there is a serious doubt with regard to the title of the property and as such, report of the Tahsildar is contrary to records. Hence, he prays for allowing this writ petition. He would also submit that original records has not been summoned or verified which ought to have undertaken by the Special Deputy Commissioner and as such, impugned order is liable to be quashed.
3. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that grant made in favour of the first respondent in respect of the subject land was in the year 1991. The proceedings which came to be initiated under Section 67(2) and 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was in the year 2009, i.e., after a gap of eighteen years, which cannot be construed as a reasonable time. It is no doubt true that where fraud is pleaded, limitation would not surface or in other words, it does not prohibit the authorities from initiating the proceedings, in as much as fraud vitiates entire proceedings. This Court has consistently held that revenue authorities questioning the grant or its genuineness will have to initiate proceedings within a reasonable time. The period of 18 years which has occurred in the instant case cannot be construed or accepted as a reasonable time. It is not the case of the petitioner-appropriate Government that records furnished by the petitioner is fudged, fabricated or fraud having been played by the first respondent in securing grant of land in question. On the other hand, genuineness of the documents produced by the first respondent is alleged to be shrouded with mystery. Proceedings which was initiated earlier by second respondent herein against the petitioner resulted in an order of remand being passed by this Court on 10.08.2016 in W.P.No.27084 of 2014 with a direction to the second respondent to ascertain the genuineness of the grant made in favour of the first respondent. Accordingly, a report has been called by the second respondent from jurisdictional Tahsildar, who in turn has filed a report certifying that there no material existed to disbelieve the order of grant made in favour of first respondent. Infact, proceedings of the Committee dated 08.07.1994 discloses that 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.54 namely, subject land having been granted in favour of the first respondent by considering his application dated 13.07.1991 filed in Form No.50. In the light of the said overwhelming documents available on record, second respondent has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the documents produced by the petitioner cannot be disbelieved. Hence, question of second respondent summoning the original documents would not arise particularly in the background of the report filed by the jurisdictional Tahsildar certifying that records produced by petitioner disclosing the grant in favour of the first respondent being genuine. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that there is good ground made out to entertain this petition. As such, at the threshold itself, writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
DH