R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A.No.1291/2009 C/W R.S.A.No.1290/2009 IN R.S.A. No.1291/2009 BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 101.
(BY SRI V SREENIDHI, AGA) AND:
SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O NANJUNDACHARI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O YANADHNAHALLI VILLAGE HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK PIN – 563 101.
…APPELLANTS ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.4.2009, PASSED IN R.A.No.331/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM, KOLAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:10.11.2008 PASSED IN O.S.No.202/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN)KOLAR.
IN R.S.A. No.1290/2009 BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 101.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI V SREENIDHI, AGA) AND:
SRI BUDDANNA S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O YANADHNAHALLI VILLAGE HUTHUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK – 563 101.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.4.2009, PASSED IN R.A.No.330/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) KOLAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:10.11.2008 PASSED IN O.S.No.204/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) KOLAR.
THESE RSAs COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These two appeals by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2/appellants herein are directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.2009 passed in R.A.Nos. 331/2008 and 330/2008 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), & CJM Kolar, wherein the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.202/2005 and O.S.No.204/2005 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Kolar, came to be set aside and the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.
2. The tabular representation of the proceedings are as under:
3. This Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law in both the appeals:
RSA No.1291/2009 1. Whether the State Government is competent to grant land in favour of the respondent in Sy.No.8 of Karapa Siddhanahalli village which was the land granted in favour of the Forest Department on 06.07.1936?
2. Whether the grant made in favour of respondent is in contravention of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1981?
RSA No.1290/2009 Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and in decreeing the suit without appreciating Ex.D2?
4. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties hereinafter are referred in accordance with their respective status as stood in the Trial Court.
5. As both the appeals are related to same subject matter and the matters pertain to granting of lands, they were ordered to be clubbed together and now this Court dispose of the appeals through a common judgment.
6. Plaintiffs- Krishnappa and Buddanna have filed suit in O.S.No.202/2005 and 204/2005 before the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), & JMFC Kolar, against the defendants viz., (i) State of Karnataka by Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and (ii) The District Forest Officer, Kolar District, Kolar, seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
7. Insofar as RSA 1291/2009 (RA No.331/2008 and O.S.No.202/2005) is concerned, before the trial Court, plaintiff-Krishnappa sought the relief of permanent injunction claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land to the extent of 5 acres in Survey No.8, situate at Kapara Siddanahalli village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk, as it was granted in his favour by the Government.
8. Insofar as RSA 1290/2009 (RA No.330/2008 and O.S.No.204/2005) is concerned, before the trial Court, plaintiff-Buddanna sought the relief of permanent injunction on the similar lines claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land to the extent of 5 acres in Survey No.8, situate at Kapara Siddanahalli village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk, as it was granted in his favour by the Government.
9. The claim of plaintiffs in both the suits were resisted by the Forest officials headed by 2nd defendant. The account according to the defendants in respect of the land in survey No.8 of Kapara Siddanahalli village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk is as under:
It is stated that, the total land available in survey No.8 of the said village is 138 acres 12 guntas and out of which, 105 acres was granted to the 2nd defendant on 6.7.1936 by the then Maharaja of Mysore and since then the Forest Department and the District Range of Kolar is in possession and enjoyment of the above said land which covers the schedule property and they have grown trees and other valuable plants. It is further stated that the plaintiffs in both the cases do not have right, title, interest or possession over the schedule property which forms a portion of land out of survey No.8.
10. The learned trial Judge was accommodated with the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2, DW1 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P9 and Exs.D1 to D11 (in OS No.202/2005) and oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2, DW1 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P12 and Exs.D1 to D11 (in OS.No.204/2005). The learned trial Judge considering the pleadings of both the parties, framed issues and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, dismissed suit filed by both the plaintiffs.
11. Against the said judgments and decree, plaintiffs in both the suits filed Regular appeal before the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & CJM Kolar, in R.A.Nos. 331/2009 and 330/2009 as stated above.
12. Both the appeals filed by the plaintiffs came to be allowed with costs throughout by setting aside the judgments and decree passed by the trial Judge in O.S.Nos.202/2005 and 204/2005 and decreeing the said suits with costs and the defendants, their staff, official or any other persons on their behalf are permanently restrained from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs in both the cases.
13. The same is challenged by the appellants/ defendants 1 and 2 under these appeals.
14. Sri.V.Sreenidhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants in both the appeals would submit that the plaintiffs before the trial Court tried to play trick and attempted to grab the government land by producing and relying on the documents that were forged though they were not granted any land by the Government. Learned Government Advocate would further submit that the details of the availability of the land in Survey No.8 of Kapara Siddanahalli village Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk, totally was 138 acres 12 guntas and out of which, Forest Department was granted 105 acres and the plaintiffs are trying to encroach the forest land.
15. He would further submit that the plaintiffs who relied on the grant have questioned the claim of the defendants that the said land was never granted and the documents filed in that connection were concocted and forged and the plaintiffs were in know of it.
16. Sri.Spoorthy Hegde, learned counsel for plaintiffs would submit that the suit lands belong to the Government and it was granted to the plaintiff in each of the cases incidentally 5 acres for each of the plaintiff and each of the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of their respective suit schedule property. Learned counsel would further submit that when the plaintiff in both the cases tried to cut and remove the trees defendant No.2 interfered and chased off the plaintiffs and as the plaintiffs in both the cases are aged about 70 and 80 years respectively, they are unable to resist the harassment of the defendants.
17. After hearing the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the following additional substantial questions of law arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the presumptive value of the revenue documents or entries have title to the claims over the land and property belonging to the Government?
(ii) Whether even when the property belongs to the defendants-Government can a relief of title or injunction be granted to the plaintiffs?
18. It is the claim of the plaintiff in each of the case that the land was granted to them, who incidentally say that they are in possession of the schedule property. It is also necessary to make out that, even they do not claim as owners, but state that they are in possession of the schedule property. The extent of land in each of the case is 5 acres in Survey No.8 situate at Karapa Siddanahalli village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk and the boundaries stated in each of the cases are as under:
In RSA 1291/2009 Land bearing Sy.No.8, measuring about 5.00 acres, situated at Karapa Siddanahalli village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk, bounded on:
East by : Land of Buddanna; West by : Land of Nagappa; North by : Gramatana and South by : Surappa.
In RSA 1290/2009 Land bearing Sy.No.8, measuring about 5.00 acres, situated at Karapa Siddanahalli village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk, bounded on:
East by : Land of Ramachandrappa; West by : Land of Krishnappa; North by : Gramatana and South by : Land of Surappa.
19. The defendant No.2-Forest Department claim that the documents produced by the plaintiff in each of the cases are bogus and Tahsildar never granted the land to them. The defendants have filed the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Kolar District, Kolar, regarding the schedule property. Incidentally, the documents connecting to each of the cases is marked as Ex.D2, wherein the Tahsildar has clarified that no such land as stated in the schedule property was granted to the plaintiffs. The Tahsildar further stated that state of affairs, genuineness of the documents pertaining to schedule property in O.S.NO.202/2005 and O.S.NO.204/2005 were verified, in response to letter sent by the Forest department, Kolar, dated 18.7.2008 seeking information, by letter dated 31.07.2008, Tahasildar stated that, after referring report of Abhilekalaya dated 23.07.2008 and the report by the Taluk Surveyor dated 24.7.2008 and the report of the Revenue Inspector dated 31.7.2008- 2009 and after verification of all the said documents and reports, it was confirmed that the said persons/plaintiffs were never granted the schedule property in the respective cases. Further on perusal of the Dharkasth Register for the year 1963-64 in respect of proceeding No.LND:60/55-56, it is stated that one Thirumalappa and 4 others of Bettahasapur village, Vemagal Hobli, have submitted applications for grant of land.
20. Similarly, in respect of Proceeding No.LND No.219/60-61 one Venkataramappa of Yelavara village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolara, had submitted the application in Survey No.137 of the said village. Thus, both the grant reference relied upon by the plaintiff in each of the cases did not belong to the schedule property, more particularly, the applications for grant was filed for the said survey numbers are totally by different persons in each of the case. In this connection, though grant details are not filed, Ex.P1 is filed wherein, incidentally, plaintiffs have relied upon the same proceeding numbers. Both the documents in respective cases are marked as Ex.P1 in OS No.202/2005 and Ex.P6 in OS No.204/2005. Incidentally, in Ex.P6, relating to OS No.204/2005, the proceedings referred is bearing LND 60/55-56 dated 10-11-1977 and in Ex.P1 relating to OS No.202/2005, proceedings referred is bearing No. LND/ 219/60-61 dated 10-11-1977. Thus, it is the specific contention of the defendants that the said lands totally measure 10 acres.
21. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs were issued by the revenue authorities who are signatories on the respective documents. Incidentally, Ex.P1 or Ex.P6 relied upon by the plaintiffs in both the cases are Xerox copies. The original is not produced by the plaintiffs for the reasons best known to them.
22. As could be seen from the RTC extract for the year 1980-81 which is marked as Ex.P2 in OS No.204/2005, the total extent of land is mentioned as “5 acres in survey No.8 of Kapara Siddanahalli village” and in Column No.9 which is meant for owner, it is mentioned as “Buddanna son of Venkatappa”, the plaintiff and katha number is shown as ‘19’. Incidentally, no details regarding mutation is mentioned which means entry made in Column No.9 is suspicious. Thus LND 60/55-56 as per the report of the Tahsildar did not belong to plaintiff in OS No.204/2005 and survey No.8 in connected case.
23. Incidentally, plaintiff in both the cases say that they have grown Eucalyptus in the land for the years 1985-86 to 1988-89. However, in respect of Kapara village for the year 1980-81 to 1981-82 the crop grown is stated as ‘Ragi’.
24. Thus remaining RTC extracts produced show the name of Buddanna in Column No.9 and again there is no mention of mutation of land or entry for having mutated the same in the name of plaintiffs as the grant is claimed to be of the year 1955 in OS No.204/2005 and of the year 1960-61 in OS No.202/2005.
25. Insofar as the defendants filing the documents i.e. the report of the Tahsildar who is the Revenue Head of the Taluk regarding forged nature of the documents is concerned, plaintiffs have neither questioned nor led evidence to prove the credibility of the said documents. It cannot be forgotten for a while that Ex.D2 issued by the Tahsildar is a report regarding the revenue entries. It has its own presumptive value. Further, it has taken away the presumptive value of RTC produced by the plaintiff in each of the cases.
26. It is to be seen that document marked as Ex.P10 is a copy of the sketch said to have been issued by the Village Accountant, the question remains that, how the said document came into existence as the Village Accountant does not issue sketch and if it is issued by the Village Accountant, it amounts to abuse of powers. Thus, the RTC extracts filed by either plaintiffs or by the defendants show only one aspect that they pertain to suit schedule property in both the cases and they are not genuine documents and said to have been created for the said purpose.
27. Ex.P7 in O.S.No.204/2005 is a Mutation Register Extract issued in a most hopeless manner. It shows that at Column No.2 that schedule property has been granted in favour of Buddanna. It is necessary to make a mention that mutation register contains specific claim wherein the report of the Village Accountant and respondent No.1 mentioned regarding the transfer from devolution of the property, thereupon on receiving the report/objections within 30 days, then Tahsildar passes orders regarding mutation and thereafter MR Number will be given and that number also finds place in RTC extract.
28. Viewed from any angle of the matter, I find that, the claim of the plaintiff in O.S.No.204/2005 in respect of the property in question is not made with good reasons. The learned trial Judge was absolutely right in his sound reasoned judgment while dismissing the suits of the plaintiffs at the original level. The learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence available before him and the legal position that requires to be appreciated. However, learned first appellate Judge, in his wisdom has not referred the crucial document, i.e. the report of the Tahsildar. Thus, when once the grant of land is tainted or polluted with falsity or communication, no fruits would be reaped under the said document. In the circumstances, the claim of the plaintiffs is that they have been granted land in survey No.8 to the extent of 5 acres each in each case and they relied upon RTC extract of the said property. But they did not file original grant certificate or mutation extract. The fraud nature of mutation or RTC extract could be possible would be the result if the documents are perused meticulously. There is no reconciliation between the pleadings and the evidence. None of the documents produced by the plaintiff in each of the cases are tenable. The learned first appellate Judge has failed to understand the presumptive value of the revenue documents and the legal position involved in these cases and allowed appeals through the judgment that go in a evasive manner regarding the crucial aspect. This tendency requires to be curbed and also to update knowledge regarding the documents.
29. I concur totally with the findings of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Kolar, recorded in O.S.No.202/2005 and 204/2005 for dismissal of suits in both the cases. Insofar as the judgments passed by the learned first appellate Judge, is concerned, it is only irregular, sans proper application of mind and appreciation of evidence. In the circumstances, in my view, the plaintiffs have made claim in respect of the properties that did not belong to them and also grant made to that extent through proper documents and they have made calculated attempt to grab the government land and also have relied upon the documents that apparently appeared forged. When the documents itself are forged one, claiming possession or title or any kind of interests over the same by the plaintiffs not only do not arise and it deserves to be curbed. In this connection, in view of the approach of plaintiffs in claiming and prosecuting the suits against Government, they are liable to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- by each of them to the Karnataka State Legal Aid Committee. At the same time, the copy of this judgment be sent to learned I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Kolar, wherever he is working and copy of this judgment be sent to Tahsildar, Kolar District to initiate enquiry against the officials who have issued the documents regarding the government land. Hence, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
30. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed.
Judgments and decree dated 25.4.2009 passed in R.A.Nos. 331/2008 and 330/2008 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Kolar, are set aside and the judgments and decree dated 10.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.202/2005 and O.S.No.204/2005 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Kolar, is confirmed.
Sd/- JUDGE tsn*