Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 128 (KAR)

Sunny Kulathakal v. State of Karnataka

2015-01-29

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI

body2015
Order Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. On hearing the learned Advocates, I allow I.A. No. 1/15 for early hearing. I grant them the earliest possible hearing. The petitioner has called into question the second respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner's order, dated 21-5-2011 (Annexure-L) cancelling the entries made in favour of the petitioner vide M.R. Nos. 4, 5, 6:95-96 in respect of the land measuring 3 acres at Sy. No. 16/P10 of Kannur Village, Jalahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. 2. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Abhinay Patil for the petitioner submits that the land in question was granted to one Shankari Bai in the year 1962. He submits that the Saguvali Chit was issued to her on 17-3-1962 (Annexure-D). He submits that the said Shankari Bai has also paid Rs. 60.00 pursuant to the land-grant, as is evident from the extract of Saguvali Register, which is produced as Annexure-E. He submits that the property has changed hands and that the present petitioner has purchased the land in question by three sale deeds, all executed on 17-12-1993 (Annexures-A1, A1 and A2). He submits that the mutation entries were effected in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 1995. When thus stood the state of affairs, the Tahsildar appears to have sent a letter, dated 6-9-2008 to the Special Deputy Commissioner. Based on the said letter, the impugned proceedings are initiated. 3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the records produced by the petitioner are not considered by the Special Deputy Commissioner. He submits that it is stated in the earlier portion of the impugned order that the records are not available and in its later portion that the documents to support and supplement the petitioner's claims are not available. He submits that the petitioner's predecessors-in-title were not even put on notice. He submits that, if the respondent-authorities propose to allege the fraud, they ought to have issued appropriate notice and initiated the appropriate proceedings. He submits that the revenue authorities cannot unilaterally hold that the land does not belong to the petitioner; they are required to approach the Civil Court in the matter. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court's decision in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1081 : (1982) 2 SCC 134 . 4. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court's decision in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1081 : (1982) 2 SCC 134 . 4. Sri H. Venkatesha Dodderi, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the register of grants may be containing an entry regarding the grant of land in favour of Shankari Bai, but as the petitioner has produced the forged documents, the Special Deputy Commissioner has disbelieved and proceeded to pass the impugned order. 5. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. What is involved is the party's precious rights in the immovable property. A cursory enquiry would not meet the requirements of the situation. The Special Deputy Commissioner ought to have examined the documents maintained at the offices of the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, etc. He first states that: Nothing decisive can be made out from such statement. The Special Deputy Commissioner is required to verify the records and deliver a categorical finding that no grant is made to Shankari Bai. He also appears to have relied on the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar. Then he proceeds to state: This gives an impression that no records whatsoever are available. If the original records are not available, the files may have to be re-built taking the contemporary papers from the concerned offices. 6. The extract of the Saguvali Register (Annexure-E) evidences the payment of Rs. 60.00. The Special Deputy Commissioner ought to have verified whether the demand for payment of Rs. 60.00 was made and whether Shankari Bai has complied with the said demand. 7. The Special Deputy Commissioner ought to have verified as to how and on what basis the persons claiming under Shankari Bai, that is, the parties who purchased the land from her - Smt. Shanthi Subramanian, Sri Vinod Kumar, Sri Rajendra Prasad, Smt. K. Jayalakshmi and Sri C. Chandrashekar, in whose favour the mutation entries were effected. The satisfaction of the revenue authorities in such matters is to be based on the objective consideration of all the materials on its record. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find that the impugned order is lacking in sustainability. On the ipse dixit of a revenue official, it cannot be held that there is no grant at all. The satisfaction of the revenue authorities in such matters is to be based on the objective consideration of all the materials on its record. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find that the impugned order is lacking in sustainability. On the ipse dixit of a revenue official, it cannot be held that there is no grant at all. It is trite that the power conferred upon the Special Deputy Commissioner by Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is exercisable for effecting or rectifying the entries made in the revenue records. If there is no basis for claiming the mutation entries, he may resort to exercise his power under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. But, in a case where a party claims his rights on the basis of a grant, the necessary enquiry has to be held. 9. No doubt, it is the duty coupled with power of the revenue officials to free all the lands from encroachment or unauthorised occupation, but the same has to be done strictly in a manner known to law. If the land is not granted or if the land is granted in violation of any law or if the grantee has violated any condition of the grant, factual determination based on an enquiry has to take place. 10. In the result, I allow this petition by quashing the impugned order. 11. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Advocate requests that the liberty be reserved to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry. 12. No liberty is expressly required to be reserved. If the revenue authorities on verification find that there is no land grant, they have to initiate the appropriate proceedings invoking appropriate provision of law and put on notice all the parties, right from the person who claimed to be an original grantee till the person, whose name figures in the revenue records, at present. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.