AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent � State.
The petitioner is said to be the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 56 measuring 7 acres 31 guntas of Chikkataggali village, Jadeganahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District which is the land in question. It transpires that several busy bodies according to the petitioner are claiming that it forms part of the tank bed area and the said tank bed is extinct for more than 100 years. The petitioner claims that after extinction of the said tank, the Government had decided to change its nature from tank to use the said land for cultivation purpose. The petitioner had obtained relevant records to trace the history of the tank and according to the petitioner, prior to the year 1921, it has been mentioned that the tank was submerged completely and it was in the control of the Government and not traceable as to who had constructed the tank. The petitioner claims that over time, the nature of the tank bed was changed. In that, it was brought under cultivation.
The survey which should be of land bearing Sy. No. 56 dated 5.4.1951 substantiates the fact that it was brought under cultivation. Similarly, the land bearing Sy. No. 52 and Katha No. 54 and Re-survey No. 56 was under cultivation. The Government had decided to grant the land to ex-serviceman. Accordingly, it was granted to one Issac S/o. Michael, a retired Dafedar who had participated in a war in the year 1928. The petitioner claims that the land is situate a kilometre away from the village and its total area was 8 acres 30 guntas and in that 39 guntas was kharab land. Therefore, the cultivable land was 8 acres 31 guntas. Issac was said to be in possession of 8 acres 30 guntas out of which 39 guntas was kharab land. It is claimed by the petitioner that in the year 1929, the Survey Department had fixed the boundary stones with regard to the land. The petitioner claims that in the year 1957, second re-class survey was conducted and it was declared that 34 guntas was kharab land out of 8 acres 30 guntas and 7 acres 36 guntas was treated as cultivable land instead of 7 acres 31 guntas. The petitioner claims that in this state of affairs, the grandfather of the petitioner one Siddareddy, S/o. Bayyareddy had purchased the land from the wife and children of Issac who was no more under a registered sale deed dated 26.09.1949. The land was described as measuring 8 acres 3 guntas and it was shown as ex-tank bed. The vendors of the grandfather and the petitioner had also planted trees in the land in question. The petitioner claims that his grandfather was growing Eucalyptus trees and after his death, the petitioner''s father had continued to grow Eucalyptus trees and after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner has continued to grow such Eucalyptus trees. The entire area is planted with Eucalyptus trees. The petitioner claims that on account of illiteracy of his grandfather, he had not got his name registered under the Record of Rights in spite of purchasing the same under registered sale deed. However, from the year 1969-70 onwards, the name of the petitioner''s father was shown in the Record of Rights. After the death of his father, the petitioner''s name was shown in the Record of Rights from the year 2002-2003 till 2009-2010 in respect of the land in question indicating that the land is under Eucalyptus cultivation. From the year 2010-11 onwards, the column with regard to crops is either kept blank or mentioned that there is no information with regard to the crops grown on the land. The petitioner continues to pay taxes in respect of the land. It is in the background that a local Member of Legislative Assembly along with his followers intending to construct a ''waste-weir'' in the adjacent land bearing Sy. No. 26, that the petitioner apprehends that the land in question would be submerged. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking an order of injunction in O.S. No. 37/2007 before the Court of the Civil Judge, Hoskote.
The State Government had entered appearance and had claimed that the tank was destroyed and it was extinct and it was granted to Issac. But if a ''waste-weir'' is constructed in the land in question, the tank could be revived and therefore claimed that the land claimed by the petitioner forms part of the tank bed area and the Civil Court however, had disposed of the suit on a summary finding that the petitioner''s remedy was to file appropriate proceedings under the Irrigation Act, 1965. Thereafter, it transpires that there is a suit filed in a representative capacity by one Srinivas, claiming that the petitioner''s property forms part of the tank bed. That suit is pending.
In the meanwhile, the Panchayat Raj Department is proceeding to implement the project to construct a ''waste-weir'', which places the petitioner''s land under threat. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
This Court had granted an interim order as per the order dated 10.08.2015. The Respondents 4 and 5 have now filed an application seeking to vacate the interim order.
It is to be noticed that in circumstances such as this where the land in question is claimed by the State as being State property, Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as ''the KLR Act'', for brevity) provides that the Deputy Commissioner would be competent to enquire into a claim in that regard and pass an order deciding the claim. If the petitioner claims that the petitioner is in occupation of land which is not part of the tank bed area which would be state property, it would be for the petitioner to have his claim adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner who shall decide the claim with reference to material documents on record and with reference to the same. Therefore, the appropriate remedy is for the petitioner to make a claim in respect of the land and for the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order.
If the petitioner is thereafter aggrieved by any such order, Section 67(3) of the KLR Act provides that a civil suit could be instituted within one year from the date of the order by the Deputy Commissioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner however would point out that any such claim before the Deputy Commissioner would be futile, as the Deputy Commissioner himself in his written statement filed in the suit filed by a third party � Srinivas, has stated that the land in question is not part of the tank bed and the tank itself is extinct and does not exist.
Whereas, the Government Advocate is quick on his feet to point out that there is no such statement made by the Deputy Commissioner.
In any event, it is for the petitioner to make a claim before the Deputy Commissioner concerned. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to hold an enquiry with reference to the material documents and to address the question whether the land claimed by the petitioner is part of the tank bed and pass an order appropriately. In the meanwhile, Respondents 4 and 5 who claim to have received the work order to implement the construction of the ''waste-weir'', shall do so, excluding the land claimed by the petitioner and shall proceed to carry on the work without interfering with the petitioner''s land in question till it is resolved in accordance with law and in terms of Section 67 of the KLR Act.
In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A. 2/2015 for vacating stay stands disposed of as it does not survive for consideration.