Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 232 (KAR)

R. Munishamappa v. Deputy Commissioner

2014-02-25

JAWAD RAHIM

body2014
ORDER 1. The petitioner claiming to be the purchaser of land in Sy. No. 31 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas of Dyavarahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk has sought writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 9-1-2013 passed in R.P. No. 37 of 2009-2010 on the file of Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District vide Annexure-R and to grant such other relief, as sought in the writ petition. In the party array, the petitioner has brought the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk as respondents 1 to 3 respectively, and one Ramachandrappa, the contesting respondent, Vendors M.R. Narayanaswamy and M.R. Govindaraju are petitioners. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by Sri D. Ashwathappa, learned Additional Government Advocate while, respondent 4 is represented by Sri R.P. Somashekaraiah, learned Counsel and respondents 5 and 6 by Sri N.S. Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned Counsel. I have heard the learned Counsel on merits and perused the records in supplementation thereto. 3. In support of the relief sought, the petitioner has categorically averred the 5th respondent-M.R. Narayanaswamy was the absolute owner of land in Sy. No. 31 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas and 6th respondent was the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 21 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of land situate in Dyavarahalli Village, Kundana Hobli. 4. The jurisdictional Tahsildar had directed the Taluk Surveyor to conduct survey and fix boundaries to the lands of respondents 5 and 6. Under such order, survey was conducted for phodi of the land. After preparing a sketch, physically boundaries were fixed allotting new Survey No. 82 as per ADLR.DPR No. 7/88-89. Based on that survey, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar carried out mutation in M.R. No. 8 of 1995-1996 showing the name of 5th respondent. The land of 5th respondent was also subjected to similar exercise and new Sy. No. 76 was assigned during phodi. The Tahsildar effected mutation in M.R. No. 6 of 1995-1996, updating the name of 6th respondent in the revenue records. The petitioner relies on those entries to prove respondents 5 and 6 were the owners of land in question and enjoying physical possession continuously. Reliance is also placed on the revenue records like R.T.C. for the years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 2000-2001 appended to the petition as Annexure-A to G respectively. 5. The petitioner contends he purchased the land in Sy. The petitioner relies on those entries to prove respondents 5 and 6 were the owners of land in question and enjoying physical possession continuously. Reliance is also placed on the revenue records like R.T.C. for the years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 2000-2001 appended to the petition as Annexure-A to G respectively. 5. The petitioner contends he purchased the land in Sy. No. 82 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas from the 5th respondent for valuable consideration in terms of sale deed dated 28-11-2005 and obtained change of katha to his name which was effected after a detailed enquiry. He relies on the order in M.R. No. 22 of 2005-2006 and a copy of sale deed dated 28-11-2005 and the mutation extracts in M.R. No. 22 of 2005-2006 vide Annexure-H to L respectively. Similarly, he claims to have purchased the land bearing Sy. No. 76 form the 6th respondent by virtue of a registered sale deed of even date, produced and marked as Annexure-M to P respectively, including a revenue record. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is, while he is in lawful physical possession of the land in question, the authorities demanded payment of tax etc., which he complied and continued to cultivate the land with dry crops. The Revenue Authorities have conducted a detailed enquiry for updating the entries, but the 4th respondent questioned the mutation entry in the name of 5th respondent vide order in M.R. No. 8 of 1995, after 12 years through his appeal R.A. No. 123 of 2006-2007. The Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division declined to entertain the appeal as it was belated more than 12 years. 7. The petitioner entered contest in the appeal, filed a detailed objection as a consequence of which, the Assistant Commissioner considered the appeal not only on merits but regarding explanation for delay and found no favour with the grounds urged by the 4th respondent and dismissed the appeal by an order dated 24-11-2008. However he directed the parties to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of the dispute, if any, as seen from Annexure-Q. 8. The petitioner, aggrieved by such order of 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 37 of 2009-2010 which was heard on merits, after notice to the 4th respondent and the vendors of the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by such order of 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 37 of 2009-2010 which was heard on merits, after notice to the 4th respondent and the vendors of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner opined the sale deeds produced by the petitioner in support of his title were by persons, whose claim of grant of land in their favour was not fully substantiated. Thus, doubting the sale transaction, the Deputy Commissioner also directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of their title in a Competent Court. Aggrieved by the order of Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner is in this writ petition, assailing both the orders. 9. Sri P.N. Nanja Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner was at his best and with vehemence, contends the names of petitioner's vendors viz. respondents 5 and 6 appeared in the relevant revenue records from 1995-1996 and as per the enquiry conducted by the Authorised Officer, mutation entries were updated. He heavily relies on the sale deeds in favour of his clients to contend he has acquired title in a manner known to law and seeks citational support to his contention through a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Padmaja vs. Yellubai Appaji Patil and Others, 2000 (1) Kar. L.J. Sh. No. 4 and the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of C.N. Nagendra Singh vs. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and Others, 2002 (6) Kar. L.J. 391 (FB) : ILR 2002 Kar. 2750 (FB). 10. The thrust of his arguments is the authorities are required to accept transfer of property by a sale deed when produced by the parties without raising any question and entertaining doubt unwarranted. 11. Learned Counsel relies on the provisions of Sections 127 and 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to contend that once a person getting title by succession or a person acquiring title by sale intimates the Authorised Officer, he is duly bound to bring necessary changes and any claim to the contrary should not be entertained. The alternate submission is even if there is any dispute, the person raising a dispute must go to Civil Court and not a person who has title deed in his favour. 12. The alternate submission is even if there is any dispute, the person raising a dispute must go to Civil Court and not a person who has title deed in his favour. 12. Seemingly, these grounds are very impressive, but when we consider the factual matrix of this case, all that transpired between the parties indicates mala fides and undoubtedly an attempt to create fraudulent entries. 13. The petitioner has produced in this writ petition, two documents to evidence grant of land in favour of his vendors viz. respondents 5 and 6. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, these grants were made in favour of respondents 5 and 6 as early as in the year 1978. To substantiate this proposition and claim of respondents 5 and 6, two documents (xerox copies) were produced at Annexure-S and W. Annexure-S bears an endorsement to the following effect: "(1) Extent of 1 acre 21 guntas land as per O.M. No. B. Dis LMD(I) 110/78-79, dated 19-7-1978 of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. (2) Report No. LMD Rue 138/78-79, dated 16-6-1978 of the Assistant Commissioner, D.B. Pur Sub-Division, Bangalore District." There is a date, which shows the date as 1-10-1978. By this, the petitioner seeks to establish his vendor was granted land in the year 1978 and by Annexure-W, second vendor was granted land. Both these annexure are the Xerox copies of so-called Grant Certificate in Form 1. 14. Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent seriously disputed the genuineness of these documents and described it as concocted and manipulated for the purpose of this case. 15. In this regard, he drew my attention to the printing of Form 1, Annexure-W showing the Government Press had printed those forms in the year 1988. The endorsement reads thus: "WD-03200-GBP-2000 pads of 100 sheets each 8-3-1988." Annexure-W is said to be Xerox copy of original grant issued which bears the date of issue as 10-7-1978 but the Form was printed only in the year 1988, i.e. ten years later. 16. Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent is justified in pointing out that when form itself is printed in 1988, it could not have been used to issue Grant Certificate with the signature of Tahsildar in the year 1978. The petitioner was given an opportunity to explain as to why respondents 5 and 6 could get it. 16. Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent is justified in pointing out that when form itself is printed in 1988, it could not have been used to issue Grant Certificate with the signature of Tahsildar in the year 1978. The petitioner was given an opportunity to explain as to why respondents 5 and 6 could get it. Both have filed no explanation to the manifest discrepancy in the dates appearing, which undoubtedly leads to tentative conclusion subject to proof of contrary that those documents may be concocted and cannot be given any credence. Based on such documents, if further entries are made in the revenue records, they are only worth rejection but to be viewed seriously. 17. If grant was in the year 1978, in the normal course, respondents 5 and 6 should have intimated the grant to the authorities for updating entries but they have not done. They did so only in 2005, just before selling the property to the petitioner. This aspect of course, was not noticed by the Deputy Commissioner since these documents were not produced before him whereas in this writ petition, these documents were produced to annul the findings of the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, who have entertained doubt about the genuineness of the claim of respondents 5 and 6 and consequently, genuineness of sale transaction between them and the petitioner. 18. In this fact situation, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are right in relegating the parties to obtain adjudication of their right, title and interest in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Both the authorities have acted dispassionately and considered the material in the right perspective to reach such conclusion which needs no interference by this Court. Besides, as it has come to the notice of this Court, the possibility of these documents being created, it is necessary to direct the Deputy Commissioner to take note of it and if circumstances warrant, initiate action as contemplated under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and if necessary, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well. A copy of this order be marked to the Deputy Commissioner concerned, for action. In the result, rule issued is dissolved. Writ petition is dismissed imposing costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner to be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Committee. A copy of this order be marked to the Deputy Commissioner concerned, for action. In the result, rule issued is dissolved. Writ petition is dismissed imposing costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner to be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Committee. Sri D. Ashwathappa, learned AGA is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks. Petition Dismissed.