IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.5041/2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk, Bengaluru District. …PETITIONER (By Sri.Dinesh Rao, Addl. Advocate General along with Sri.Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA) AND:
1. Sri.Ramanjinappa, Son of Late Eranna, Sadenahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli-560 090. Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk, Yelahanka, Bengaluru District.
2. Sri.Narayanaswamy, Son of Late Eranna, Sadenahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli-560 090, Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk, Bengaluru District.
3. The Special Deputy Commissioner-1, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru District-560 009. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri.Chithappa, Adv. for R1 & R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order at Annexure-A dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru in case No.RRT(2)/NA/CR/31/15-16.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day the Court made the following :-
ORDER The order of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner-1, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru District in R.R.T(2) N(A) CR/31/15-16, dated 28.01.2016 is subject matter of challenge in these proceedings by State which was petitioner in the said proceedings. Admittedly the said proceedings before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner was pursuant to a letter of the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Addl) Taluk, suspecting the entries made in the revenue records in respect of Sy. No.30 measuring an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas situated at Sadenahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl) Taluk to be bogus and its genuineness has to be examined under S.136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. The records would indicate that the aforesaid land was granted in favour of Eranna, father of the first and second respondents herein in the year 1970. It is stated that during the life time of said Eranna, the aforesaid land which was granted in his favour was not registered in his name. He continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same till the date of his death on 29.07.2008. Thereafter respondent Nos.1 and 2 who were under the impression that the aforesaid land stood in the name of their father approached the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk in case No.R.R.T (Dispute) C.R.117/2012-13 seeking initiation of IHC proceedings with reference to the said land and registration of their names as legal heirs of Eranna.
3. The aforesaid application was opposed by S.R. Nagesh and six others who are residents of Sadenahalli Village. However, it is seen that the said application is accepted by the Tahsildar who passed appropriate order confirming the mutation of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy. No.30 of Sadenahalli Village in the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2, which was subject-matter of appeal in proceedings No.RA(B.N.A)75/2013-14 on the file of Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru, initiated by one K.H. Ramadas on the ground that Eranna was not the grantee of the said land.
4. The said appeal came to be rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 09.11.2016. Thereafter it is seen that the said order was subject matter of challenge before the 3rd respondent Spl. Deputy Commissioner – 1 in proceedings in R.R.T(2) N(A) CR/31/15-16, initiated by the State - petitioner herein. In the said proceedings the Spl. Deputy Commissioner accepted the order passed by the Tahsildar as well as the Asst. Commissioner in confirming the same and consequently caused the order in the aforesaid proceedings dated 28.01.2016 directing the Tahsildar to enter the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the revenue records in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sadenahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk.
5. The State being aggrieved by the same has come up in these proceedings on the premise that though respondent Nos.1 and 2 are contending that the aforesaid land was granted in their father’s name, there is nothing on record to demonstrate the same.
6. Learned Addl. Advocate General who appeared in the matter would go to the extent of stating that all the documents are created documents. However, when Annexure-1 - the grant order in Form-I produced by the respondents and Annexure-F – Darakhasts Register produced by the State are perused, it is clearly seen that in both the documents, reference is made to land grant made in favour of Eranna, father of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in proceedings No. LND.B3(3)SR.191/70-71 dated 20.05.1970. The said order would indicate that the grant made is in favour of Eranna on an upset price of Rs.500/- per acre. When the same was demonstrated by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Addl. Advocate General had no other option but to accept since the very same entry is reflected in the records maintained by the State also.
7. In that view of the matter, no ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent orders made by all the authorities in registering the names of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as legal heirs of deceased Eranna the original grantee of land in Sy. No.30 of Sadenahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk.
Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
sac* Sd/- JUDGE