IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.13444 & 29944 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O. LATE CHOWDAPPA AGRICULTURIST R/O. TADAGALALE VILLAGE HAREKOPPA POST, TALAGUPPA HOBLI SAGAR TALUK – 577 430 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT B.K.ROAD, GANDHINAGARA SAGAR CITY – 577 401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O. LATE RAJU C.
HOMEMAKER & AGRICULTURIST.
3. KUMARI BHAVANA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, MINOR D/O. LATE RAJU C.
4. KUMARI DIVYA AGED ABUT 4 YEARS, MINOR D/O. LATE RAJU C.
PETITIONER NOS.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN- MOTHER, THE SECOND PETITIONER SMT. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O. LATE RAJU C.
HOMEMAKER & AGRICULTURIST R/O. TADAGALALE VILLAGE HAREKOPPA POST, TALAGUPPA HOBLI SAGAR TALUK – 577 430 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB-DIVISION SAGAR – 577 401.
4. THE TAHASILDHAR SAGAR TALUK, SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 401.
5. RAJU @ RAJUGOWDA AGED MAJOR S/O.CHANNABASAPPA GOWDA R/O. TADAGALALE VILLAGE HAREKOPPA POST, TALAGUPPA HOBLI SAGAR TALUK – 577 430 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
6. PADMAMMA AGED MAJOR W/O. MUDDAPPA GOWDA R/O. TADAGALALE VILLAGE HAREKOPPA POST, TALAGUPPA HOBLI SAGAR TALUK – 577 430 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA FOR R1-R4, NOTICE TO R5 & R6 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DTD.14.12.2017) …RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION/ORDER DTD.06.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE R.2 ADDRESSED TO R.4 VIDE ANN-AJ TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of original grantee namely Era, S/o. Kwathya, are before this Court impugning the communication between the second respondent and the fourth respondent in proceedings No.61777-SMGDC.RRT.CR-168/16-17 (6074/16-17) dated 6.1.2017.
2. The brief facts leading to this case are as under:
Petitioners herein are claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of Era and his son Sannamudda. According to them, Era and Sannamudda, are grantees of the land to an extent of 5 acres each in old Sy.No.270 of Tadagalale Village, Talaguppa Hobli, Sagara Taluk, Shivamogga District. Pursuant to the grant of land made in favour of each of them, phodi and mutation entries were made, wherein the land in Sy.No.396 measuring 5 acres 13 guntas was registered in favour of Era and the land in New Sy.No.397 measuring 5 acres 29 guntas was registered in favour Sannamudda, which is not in dispute.
3. It is further seen that Era died during the year 1955 and he was survived by another grantee Sannamudda and another son Chowdappa. The records indicate that Sannamudda also died on 10.2.1971 without any issue and his nearest legal heir is none other than his younger brother Chowdappa. The said Chowdappa is the second son of Era, who in turn had two children by name Manjappa and Raju. The said Manjappa is the first petitioner in the proceedings and Raju died leaving behind his wife - Smt.Jayalakshmi, who is petitioner No.2 and two of his daughters by name Kumari Bhavana and Kumari Divya are petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in this proceedings.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the land bearing Sy.Nos.396 and 397 of Tadagalale Village are in their possession and they had cultivation rights from the date when it was granted in favour of Era and his eldest son Sannamudda since 1939-40 and it has not been encroached by anybody. However, erroneously name of one Gangamma is said to have been included in column No.12(2) of RTC as she is in cultivation of the land with other members of the family.
5. When the matter stood thus, it is seen that an application was filed before the Tahsildar by Chowdappa during his lifetime seeking removal of the name of Gangamma on the premise that inclusion of her name in Column No.12(2) of RTC is erroneous and the same is without any right of grant in her favour. The Tahsildar is said to have accepted the statements of Chowdappa in his application and accordingly, ordered for removal of the name of Gangamma from Column No.12(2) of RTC. The said order was challenged by the said Gangamma before the Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal in RA No.83/1995-96, wherein the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 19.5.1997 setting aside the order of the Tahsildar in RRT (D) CR 12/94-95 dated 13.7.1995 directing to remove the name of Gangamma and reserved liberty to claim right of adverse possession in the Civil Court, which was set up in that appeal. It is observed that till such time it was ordered that the land should be vested with the Government. The said order was the subject matter of the challenge before this Court in W.P.No.27287/1999. The said matter was heard and disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 24.9.1999 reserving liberty to the father of the first petitioner, who is also father-in-law of the second petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner by filing a revision and till that time, to maintain status-quo as it was on the date of filing of the above said writ petition.
6. It is seen that after disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the father of the first petitioner died and family members, who were not aware of the position of the legal proceedings have tried to revive the same by issuing notice to the Secretary to Government and other revenue authorities and also to legal heirs of Gangamma seeking restoration of the revenue entries in Column No.12(2) of RTC in the name of legal heirs of original grantees i.e., Era and Sannamudda, with reference to which, the Chief Secretary to Government directed the second and the fourth respondents to look into the matter and take appropriate action in this behalf and report the same to the Principal Secretary of Revenue Department. On the basis of that directions issued by the Secretary to Government, the Tahsildar is said to have conducted spot inspection and recorded the statement of respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are legal heirs of Gangamma and placed the same before the Deputy Commissioner, which has evoked the reply dated 06.01.2017, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
7. After giving due consideration to the materials available on record, this Court finds that the communication between the second and the fourth respondents dated 6.1.2017 is only an inter-departmental correspondence between the two officials with reference to the manner in which the dispute in respect of the revenue entries in Sy.Nos.396 and 397, which is required to be resolved by the fourth respondent – Tahsildar. In the light of the communication, the Tahsildar has to submit the same to the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, question of interfering with the same does not arise.
8. It would suffice to direct the fourth respondent – Tahsildar to dispose of the proceedings, which is initiated by him pursuant to the communication received from the Secretary to the Government dated 16.9.2016 within a period of three months from this day, keeping in mind the statements provided to him by the legal heirs of the deceased Gangamma, whose name was seen earlier in the year 1974-
75 in Column No.12(2) of RTC in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.396 and 397.
9. With the above said observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.
10. In the light of disposal of the aforesaid writ petitions, in holding Annexures-‘AJ’ as inter-departmental communication, question of issuance of notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6 does not arise. Accordingly, notice to them is dispensed with.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA