Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2305 (KAR)

K. v. Prasad VS State of Karnataka

2019-12-16

B.VEERAPPA

body2019
ORDER : 1. The petitioners filed the present writ petition to quash Annexure-A dated 11.10.2019 and Annexure-B dated 12.10.2019 issued by the respondent No.3-Inspector General of Registration and Stamps directing all the Sub Registrars in the State not to register the sale deeds in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.47, 48 and 49/6, (New Sy.Nos.109, 110, 111, 112 and 113) situated at Mulluru Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing Sy.Nos.47, 48 and 49/6 which were government gomal lands have been granted to the petitioners' predecessors under valid grants and duly delivered possession. According to the petitioners, on 05.07.1962 the grantees i.e., Sathyanaryanasharma, Sri.Keshavamurthy and Sri.Nanjundappa were permitted to cultivate the land. On 19.09.1962, the Assistant Commissioner granted four acres each in favour of the grantees as per Annexure-D. On thebasis of the said grant, on 17.01.1963, the Tahisldar issued Grant Certificate in favour of Sri.Sathyanaryana Sharma, Sri.Keshavamurthy and Sri.Nanjundappa as per Annexures-G, H and J, respectively. Thereafter, revenue entries were made in the name of the original grantees. On 11.04.1978, the Deputy Commissioner issued conversion order as per Annexure-T and subsequently other lands also. The conversion order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the lands in question has reached finality. The grantees filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.22024-26/2016 with regard to durasthi and phodi which came to be allowed on 22.07.2010 as per Annexure -V. This Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation at the earliest and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. 3. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, exercising powers under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by the Order dated 05.02.2011, cancelled the grant and forfeited the lands into the State Government. That was subject matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P. Nos. 13361-63/2011. This Court, by the Order dated 22.08.2013, quashed the Order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and allowed the writ petitions. At paragraphs 12 to 15 it is held as under: "12. That was subject matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P. Nos. 13361-63/2011. This Court, by the Order dated 22.08.2013, quashed the Order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and allowed the writ petitions. At paragraphs 12 to 15 it is held as under: "12. Perused the writ petition papers and considered the submissions made at the Bar, with the bifurcation of the Bangalore Rural District, the Special Deputy Commissioner who is in-charge of Bangalore East and Anekal Taluk has passed the impugned order observing that though the petitioners have produced the supporting documents in support of their claim that the land had been granted in their favour as per official memorandum dated 07.07.1962, claim of the petitioners is rejected only on the ground that the 2nd respondent had called for the records and found that they were not available. What is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that such records are available only at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District and that they had not at all been verified. Upon verification the order does indicate this position and the verification was not at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, but at the other office. The certified copy issued by the office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, produced as Annexures-F to S to the writ petition bear testimony to the claim of the petitioners. The impugned order is passed without verifying the relevant records, but on the basis of report that the records were not available and verified at the wrong office cannot be sustained in law. 13. Moreover, the Special Deputy Commissioner by issue of notice under Section 136(3) of the Act could not have proceeded to pass orders forfeiting the granted land as it is only the revenue entries which can be corrected in exercise of the power under Section 136(3) of the Act and not for passing an order of forfeiture. The documents such as certified copies produced by the petitioners are not disputed by the respondents. In fact, even the order passed by the second respondent is not cogent or consistent order, but opines both in favour of and against the petitioners. 14. In the circumstances, the order cannot be sustained. The impugned order at Annexure-Y dated 05.02.2011 is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. 15. Writ petition is allowed. In fact, even the order passed by the second respondent is not cogent or consistent order, but opines both in favour of and against the petitioners. 14. In the circumstances, the order cannot be sustained. The impugned order at Annexure-Y dated 05.02.2011 is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. 15. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute." 4. As against the Order passed by the learned single Judge, the State Government filed W.A.Nos.286/2015 and 770-771/2015, which came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 26.02.2015 and the said Order has reached finality. 5. In the meanwhile, the Tahsildar passed the eviction order dated 12.12.2013 against the original grantees. That was subject matter of Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who quashed the order passed by Tahsildar and directed to restore the revenue entries and continue land records in pahani and RTC in the name of the grantees. Subsequently, Ravikumar S/o Sathyanarayana Sharma, Appanna, S/o Nanjundappa and Keshava Murthy, S/o Channarayappa, filed W.P.Nos.2006-2008/2017 for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents therein to consider their representation dated 26.04.2016 vide Annexures-J1 to J3 and K1 to K3 to the said writ petitions. This Court, after hearing both the parties, by the Order dated 30.01.2017, disposed off the writ petitions directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners and carryout out phodi and durasti work in respect of petitioners' lands measuring 4 acres each comprised in Sy.No.47 situated at Mullur village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, within a period of six months. The said order passed by the learned single Judge has also reached finality. 6. Thereafter, the State Government leased the property measuring 8 acres in Sy.No.48 of Mulluru village, VarthuruHobli, in favour of Vidya Manasa Education Trust, who approached this Court in W.P.Nos.54770-54771/2016, challenging the Order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.659/2008 and 660/2008. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by the Order dated 10.04.2019, dismissed the writ petitions, confirming the Order passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and directed to restore the revenue entries in respect of 8 acres of land in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, i.e., Chikkamuniswamy and Madappa, to an extent of 4 acres in the name of each of them as it stood earlier. 7. 7. When things stood thus, the 3rd respondent-Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, issued Annexures-A and B dated 11.10.2019 and 12.10.2019 directing all the Sub Registrars in the State not to register sale deeds in respect of Sy.Nos.47, 48 and 49/6 (New Sy.Nos.109, 110, 111, 112 and 113) of Mullur village, Varthur Hobli. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for. 8. The State Government has filed detailed statement of objections to the writ petition justifying the Order passed by the 3rd respondent-Inspector General of Registration and Stamps and contended that the Assistant Commissioner, after holding detailed enquiry, has submitted the report and recommended to take action under the provisions of Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. All the lands under dispute are government lands. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is justified in issuing Annexures-A and B sought to dismiss the writ petition. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, contended that the Order dated 19.09.1962 passed by the original authority granting 4 acres of land in favour of each of the original grantees and issuing saguvali chit, has reached finality. The Deputy Commissioner, by the Order dated 11.04.1978, converted the lands to non agricultural residential purpose after satisfying himself that the lands have been granted in favour of the original grantees. Subsequently, the other lands were also converted. The said conversion order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, has reached finality. He would further contend that the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner canceling the grant and forfeiting the land into the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, was subject matter of W.P. Nos. 13361-363/2011. This Court, considering the entire material on record, by the Order dated 22.08.2013, allowed the writ petitions. The said Order has been confirmed by the Division Bench and has reached finality. The grant order passed in favour of the petitioners has reached finality. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has no power to issue impugned Orders vide Annexures-A and B directing all the Sub Registrars in the State not register sale deeds in respect of the properties granted in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners. 11. The grant order passed in favour of the petitioners has reached finality. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has no power to issue impugned Orders vide Annexures-A and B directing all the Sub Registrars in the State not register sale deeds in respect of the properties granted in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners. 11. He further contended that, when there is no dispute with regard to grant in favour of the grantees and the grant is made absolute, the 3rd respondent is not justified in issuing the impugned orders and therefore, sought to allow the writ petition. 12. Per contra, Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Advocate General for the State, while justifying the impugned Orders vide Annexures-A and B, contended that the lands in Sy.Nos.47, 48 and 49/6 of Mullur village were originally gomala lands. Though the grant was made in the year 1962, the Deputy Commissioner has cancelled the grant by exercising powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964 and forfeited the lands with the State Government. Though the writ petitions filed by the grantees were allowed and confirmed in writ appeals, the fact remains that the lands are government lands and the enquiry report clearly indicates that steps have been already initiated to take possession of the lands and therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. Learned Advocate General also brought to the notice of this Court that the Circular 06.04.2009 directing the Sub-Registrar not to register any documents in respect of the government lands was subject matter of W.P. No. 18393/2009 c/w W.P. No. 14050/2012 (GM-ST-RN-PIL) and this Court, by the Order dated 18.03.2016 allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Circular dated 06.04.2009, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata, 2005 (12) SCC 77 and the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of D. Pavanesh vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (2) KLJ 396 DB, wherein Section 22A of the Act has been struck down. The said judgment was subject matter of Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 15837-15838/2016, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the Order dated 11.07.2016, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the judgment passed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the Circular dated 06.04.2019 is in force. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 13. The said judgment was subject matter of Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 15837-15838/2016, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the Order dated 11.07.2016, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the judgment passed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the Circular dated 06.04.2019 is in force. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the case of the petitioners that the lands mentioned in Annexures-A and B are the gomala lands and were granted in favour of K.S. Sathyanarayanasharma, Keshavamurthy and Nanjundappa, on 19.09.1962. It is also not in dispute that the jurisdictional Tahsildar issued grant certificates dated 17.01.1963. The Deputy Commissioner, by the Order dated 11.04.1978 converted the said lands to non agricultural residential purpose. The original grantees approached this Court in W.P.Nos.22024-26/2010 seeking direction to effect phodi and durasthi, which came to be allowed on 27.07.2010. It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and forfeited the said lands, which was subject matter of W.P. Nos. 13361-63/2011. The learned single Judge allowed the said writ petitions. It is also not in dispute that the Appeal filed by the State Government in W.A.Nos.286/2015 and 770-771/2015 came to be dismissed and the said Order passed in writ petition and writ appeal has reached finality. 14. The respondents, though not disputed the grant, but contended that the lands in question are government gomal lands and alleged grant is obtained by playing fraud. If it is so, what is the action taken by the State Government against the Authority who granted the lands in favour of the grantees in 1962 is not forthcoming. It is also not in dispute that the Order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, vide Annexure-W also came to be quashed, and the said Order has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Now, the Assistant Commissioner submitted the report on 09.12.2019 during pendency of the present writ proceedings. 15. Though the learned Advocate General relied upon the provisions of Section 69(1)(j) of the Registration Act, 1908, which stipulates that Inspector General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the State Government and shall have power from time to time to make rules. 15. Though the learned Advocate General relied upon the provisions of Section 69(1)(j) of the Registration Act, 1908, which stipulates that Inspector General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the State Government and shall have power from time to time to make rules. Since the Order passed by this Court quashing the Circular dated 06.04.2009 has been stayed by the Hon'ble supreme Court dated 11.07.2016 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 15837-15838/2016, and the matter is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there cannot be any doubt that the Circular dated 06.04.2009, is in force as on today. If it is so, there was no need for the respondent No.3/Inspector General of Registration and Stamps to issue the impugned orders/direction. The Circular dated 06.04.2009 issued earlier holds good. If any registration is made, it is for the Sub Registrars to follow the earlier Circular stated supra. There was no need for the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps to issue any direction in respect of aforesaid three survey numbers. 16. The provisions of Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, has not given any independent power to issue separate circular in respect of each survey number. Even assuming that the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps has issued Circulars which are in force, it is for the Registrar to consider the circulars issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, or Circular issued from time to time, while registering the sale deeds and should verify whether they are government lands or not and proceed in accordance with law. 17. In view of the above, the impugned memorandum issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps dated 11.10.2019 and 12.10.2019 vide Annexures-A and B is without jurisdiction and is accordingly quashed. However, it is made clear that in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 15837-15838/2016, dated 11.07.2016 staying the operation of the Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2016 in W.P. No. 18393/2009 c/w W.P. No. 14050/2012, quashing the Circular dated 06.04.2019 and the matter is ceased before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Circular dated 06.04.2009 is in force. 15837-15838/2016, dated 11.07.2016 staying the operation of the Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2016 in W.P. No. 18393/2009 c/w W.P. No. 14050/2012, quashing the Circular dated 06.04.2019 and the matter is ceased before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Circular dated 06.04.2009 is in force. Therefore, it is for the Sub-Registrars concerned to act in accordance with the circular and any further proceedings by the authorities is always subject to the result of the Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 15837-15838/2016,pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is needless to state that, any dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said matter will be binding on all the parties. 18. In respect of the proceedings initiated by the authorities under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, if any, it is for the authorities to proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off. 19. All the contentions of both the parties are left open to be urged before the concerned authority, in accordance with law.