Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 70 (KAR)

H. v. Susheela VS State of Karnataka

2015-01-12

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI

body2015
ORDER 1. The petitioners have called into question the second respondent Special Deputy Commissioner’s order, dated 29.09.2011 (AnnexureA) directing the deletion of the name of B.P.Basavaraju from the revenue records in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 30 guntas at Sy.No.25 of Bayyanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk. 2. Smt. Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is passed against a dead person. Sri B.P.Basavaraju died on 31.12.2005, whereas the impugned order is passed six years thereafter. She submits that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the said Basavaraju. She submits that neither the said Basavaraju nor his legal representatives have had any notice of the proceedings. She submits that under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, no enquiry can be held regarding the grant of the land. 3. Sri H.Venkatesha Dodderi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submits that this Court may remand the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of giving the opportunities to the legal representatives of the deceased Basavaraju. On being asked as to whether the grant order is there in the original records which he has secured, he fairly submits that the same is found in the records. 4. The impugned order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. Firstly, the very initiation of Section 136 proceedings are in 2008, three years after the death of the said Basavaraju. The proceedings so initiated are concluded as if Basavaraju is alive. 5. The perusal of the impugned order does not show that the Special Deputy Commissioner has called for any documents from the office of the Tahasildar and examined them. He merely states that the said Basavaraju had not produced any documents and that is why he comes to the conclusion that the land is not granted. The minimum and basic duty of examining the records available in the office of the Tahasildar is not discharged by the Special Deputy Commissioner. 6. Thirdly, even assuming that the grant order is not valid or that the grantee has violated the conditions of the grant order, the concerned revenue authorities are required to hold the enquiry under the Land Grant Rules. The grant of the land cannot be varied to the prejudice of any party in the proceeding under Section 136 of the said Act. The grant of the land cannot be varied to the prejudice of any party in the proceeding under Section 136 of the said Act. The power under Section 136(3) is exercisable only for the purpose of ensuring that the records are based on the acquisition of title or right by a party. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned order. Unnecessarily for no fault on their part, the petitioners are driven to the Court. I therefore impose a cost of `3,000/on the respondents, which shall be paid by them to the first petitioner within two weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today’s order. She would receive the cost on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also. The mutation entries, as they stood before the passing of the impugned order, shall be restored within one month from the date of issuance of the certified copy of today’s order. 8. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.