Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 619 (KAR)

M. SHETTAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2007-09-24

N.K.PATIL

body2007
N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, assailing the correctness of the order passed by second respondent dated 17th November 2004 passed in RRT. CR. 4/ 1997-98 vide Annexure-L, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to restore the revenue entries Darkast (granted) land in favour of petitioner and also issue further direction to fourth respondent not to interfere with petitioner's land. ( 2 ) THE grievance of petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that, the land bearing Sy. No. 29 measuring 02 acres situate at Chikkanagamangala village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District was granted by third respondent in favour of the father of petitioner, late Sri teli Muniyappa @ Muniyappa Shetty by the Government of Mysore on an upset price under the Darkast grant from the date of alleged grant. Since then, petitioner's father has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property as per the alleged Darkast scheme under Darkast land grant order dated 11th April 1964 bearing No. LND. /sr. 86/1964-65 vide annexure-A, subject to certain terms and conditions stipulated in the said grant order. Thereafter, the Government has issued the Grant Certificate dated 12th April 1967 bearing No. LND. CR. 205/49-50/1964-65 vide annexure-B. After the death of the father of petitioner Sri Teli Muniyappa, the name of the petitioner has been inserted by order bearing No. IHC. 29/ 95-96. Further, the jurisdictional authority by its order dated 20th december 1999 in M. R. No. 1/99-2000 in No. LND. S. CR. 1063/96-97 has rounded off the name of petitioner and entered in the said place as 'government'. Petitioner has not chosen to assail the correctness of the rounding off of the name of petitioner by the competent authority and entering the name as 'government' by the competent authority by its order dated 20th December 1999. Be that as it may. ( 3 ) THE second respondent exercising the power under sub-section (3)of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has allowed the revision on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk regarding the entries found in respect of land bearing Sy. Be that as it may. ( 3 ) THE second respondent exercising the power under sub-section (3)of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has allowed the revision on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk regarding the entries found in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 29 measuring 02 acres situate at Chikkanagamangala Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal taluk that, the said entries are made on the basis of the illegal entries made in the Saguvali Chit Register and the entries made in respect of late sri Teli Muniyappa are not supported by any original grant order and hence, they are bogus and concocted. Therefore, the inheritance khata made in IHC. 29/95-96 during 1995-96 are based on illegal entries and hence, the same are liable to be cancelled. ( 4 ) WHEN things stood thus, The Sixth respondent has filed the writ petition in W. P. No. 33438/2000 assailing the correctness of the order dated 27th March 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19th December 2001 remitting the matter back to the authority for fresh inquiry and disposal, after affording opportunity to the petitioner therein (sixth respondent herein ). In obedience of the direction issued by this Court and on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsidar, Anekal Taluk, the second respondent exercising the power under Section 136 (3) of the karnataka Land Revenue Act and after conducting enquiry and after affording opportunity to petitioner and sixth respondent, has allowed the petition and set aside the entries made in the name of the father of petitioner, late Sri Teli Muniyappa and subsequently in the name of petitioner and consequently, observed that, no mutation could be accepted in the name of the sixth respondent and rejected the claim of sixth respondent also as he is claiming to have purchased the land in question from a person who has not acquired any right, title or interest over the said land by way of any grant order from the competent authority. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order passed by the second respondent, as referred above, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra. ( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned special Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order passed by the second respondent, as referred above, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra. ( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned special Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 4 and 5 are deleted as per the memo filed by the learned counsel for petitioner. Sixth respondent is served and un-represented. ( 6 ) AFTER careful evaluation of the entire record available on file, and after perusal of the order passed by second respondent, it is manifest on the face of the said order that, the second respondent has not committed any error or illegality in proceeding to pass the impugned order in as much as the said authority, after conducting thorough enquiry, as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and rules and after affording sufficient opportunity to petitioner as well as sixth respondent, has passed the said Order. The said authority, after critical evaluation of the original records threadbare, has recorded a specific finding, with reference to the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Anekal taluk and opined that, the land in Sy. No. 29 totally measuring an extent of 897-07 acre situate at Chikkanagamangala is a 'gomal land' and after thorough verification of the saguvali chit register from 1962-63 to 1969-70 at page. 27 Sl. No. 147, the entry in No. LND. CR. 86/64-65, Sri Teli muniyappa, Huskur in respect of land in Sy. No. 29 measuring 02 acres are made. The said authority further observed that, the file pertaining to lnd. CR. 86/64-65 is not available in the original records and according to the entries in the pahanis from 1961-62 to 1987-88, no entries in the name of Sri Teli Muniyappa are forthcoming; In the RTCs for the years 1989-90 to 1993-94 at page No. 306 in respect of Sy. No. 29 measuring 02 acres, the name of Sri Teli Muniyappa is reflected and in column No. 10 -RR No. 382 is entered; The IL. And RR. Registers are completely torn and dilapidated; In the RTCs for the years 1994-95 at page No. 268, the name of Teli Muniyappa is rounded off and the name of Sri Settappa is inserted by virtue of IHC No. 29/95-96 and subsequently, as per the order of the second respondent in LND. And RR. Registers are completely torn and dilapidated; In the RTCs for the years 1994-95 at page No. 268, the name of Teli Muniyappa is rounded off and the name of Sri Settappa is inserted by virtue of IHC No. 29/95-96 and subsequently, as per the order of the second respondent in LND. S. CR. 1063/96-97 in M. R. No. 1/99-2000, dated 20th December 1999, the name of Sri Settappa is rounded off and entered as "government" in the relevant column of the record of rights. Further, the second respondent, in his order has specifically observed that, the predecessor of his office has personally visited the Office of Tahsildar on 7th November 2003 and verified the Saguvali Chit register and found that: "verified in the Taluk office on 7-11-2003. SI. No. 147 - LND. CR. 86/64-65-Teli Muniyappa, Huskur, Chikkanagamanagala (a) Overwriting-ink difference-Handwriting differs (b) This is the only entry for S. No. 29-adjacent entries are for different S. Nos. w^ 3j^d Soaiobrtet sjsaandairafftjs. No block Nos. " From the aforesaid information collected by the predecessor of the respondent, it emerges that, the entries made in the name of the father of petitioner, Sri Teli Muniyappa and subsequently in the name of the petitioner are not supported by any documentary evidence such as land grant order or any Certificate since no such land grant order is available. The certified copy of the saguvali chit produced by petitioner and sixth respondent are found to be over writing in the original register and ink difference and the handwriting also differs and based on these entries, the IL. and RR. Entries are made. Therefore, the second respondent has opined that, those entries cannot be given much credence as they are made on the basis of the illegal entries made in the saguvali chit register and in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he has not produced any authenticated document such as the saguvali chit and there is no such reference in the Taluk Office for having issued the saguvali chit. Therefore, the entries found in the name of late Sri Teli Muniyappa and subsequently in the name of the petitioner are illegal and are not based on any original land grant order. Further, it is specifically observed by second respondent in his order that, as per the proceedings No. MR. Therefore, the entries found in the name of late Sri Teli Muniyappa and subsequently in the name of the petitioner are illegal and are not based on any original land grant order. Further, it is specifically observed by second respondent in his order that, as per the proceedings No. MR. 29/ 95-96, late Sri Teli Muniyappa has expired as early as on 10th February 1981 whereas petitioner claims to have got the inheritance khata during 1995-96, i. e. , on 4th May 1996 and thus, it is clear that, after expiry of fifteen years from the date of death of the father of petitioner, petitioner has got the Thavathi Katha" made in his name. Therefore, the second respondent with reference to the report submitted by the Tahsildar and also the remarks made by the predecessor of the second respondent, has specifically observed and opined that, the entries found for the relevant year in the name of the father of petitioner and subsequently in the name of the petitioner are illegal and irregular and are not based on relevant authenticated documents. Further, the second respondent has observed that, the claim made by sixth respondent is on the basis of the alleged sale deed executed by the vendor, who had not acquired any right and title over the land in question and that, therefore, the said transaction is also null and void and accordingly, the claim of sixth respondent was also rejected. The said reasoning given by the second respondent is after careful evaluation of the original records available on file and with reference to the report submitted by the Tahsildar and the remarks made by the predecessor of the second respondent, after making spot inspection and after thorough verification in the original records available in the Office of tahsildar and the said authority has rightly come to the conclusion that, the entries in the name of late Sri Teli Muniyappa and subsequently in the name of petitioner are based on illegal entries and consequently mutation entry made in the name of sixth respondent is liable to be rejected. Therefore, the second respondent, after critical evaluation of the original records available on file including the report submitted by the Tahsildar, anekal Taluk and the remarks made by the predecessor of the second respondent in the original records, after conducting spot inspection in the office of Tahsildar, has passed the impugned order. Therefore, the second respondent, after critical evaluation of the original records available on file including the report submitted by the Tahsildar, anekal Taluk and the remarks made by the predecessor of the second respondent in the original records, after conducting spot inspection in the office of Tahsildar, has passed the impugned order. Therefore, interference by this Court in the said order is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds for interference in the same. Therefore, I decline to interfere in the order passed by the second respondent. However, it is needless to clarify that, it is very much open for the petitioner to agitate his rights before the competent Civil Court, if he is so advised or if need arises.