C.A. Cariappa vs The Deputy Commissioner and Others

Jawad Rahim, J.—The petitioner in this writ action has sought mandamus to the respondents to enquire into the allegations made by him through his complaint dated 5-11-2013 vide Annexures-A1 and A2 regarding alleged mischievous claim in respect of certain lands situate within the territorial limits, of the respondents. Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned A.G.A. takes notice for respondents 1 to 3.

Heard Sri A.K. Subbaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned A.G.A. for respondents.

Perused the records in supplementation thereto which reveals that the petitioner C.A. Cariappa has lodged a complaint vide Annexures-A1 and A2 before the respondents intimating them that two individuals have indulged in fraudulent acts, misrepresenting to be entitled to the benefit of benevolent provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 and have obtained orders granting them occupancy rights in respect of agrarian lands.

The allegations so made is on the basis that prior to 1955, there existed a Matt called Kannada Matt at Ammatti Bettageri Village, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. During the years 1955 and 1967, the then Matadhipati of the Matt mortgaged 197 acres of land in favour of Sri C.P. Muttappa and B.B. Kalappa for a period of 99 years. The mortgage was usufructuary mortgage. However, 3 acres of wet land in Sy. No. 12/1 and 1 acre of dry land in Sy. No. 10/1 were left out of the mortgage and were under the personal cultivation of two brothers called Shivaraju and Shankar.

After the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 was in force, one Chennabasava Deshi Kendra Swami applied for occupancy rights in respect of the mortgaged properties and Shivaraju also applied for occupation in Form 1 in respect of 3 acres of wet land in Sy. No. 12/1 and 1 acre of dry land in Sy. No. 10/1.

Chennabasava Deshi Kendra Swami who was not the Matadhipathi of the erstwhile Kannada Mutt falsely represented he was the Matadhipathi, seeking grant of occupancy rights. The petitioner assertively contends, from the records, it is evident the Matt itself became extinct, on 11-2-1993. But the land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights to the said applicant without proper enquiry as to whether there was a Matt in existence, of which he claims to be the Matadhipathi.

The main highlights in the complaint are that the applicant by name Chennabasava Deshi Kendra Swami could not have claimed occupancy rights because the Matt itself was not in existence. Therefore, the order of grant made in favour of such an applicant on the basis of mis-representation attracts the penal provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ''the Act'') particularly, Section 192-A of the Act. The application submitted by him for enquiry is with the respondents, without any action.

The petitioner, therefore, in the writ action reiterated the facts in brief and seeks to establish all the allegations in a detailed enquiry that is required to be conducted by the respondents. To sustain an action, the petitioner has raised several grounds and has referred to undisputed facts that revenue records in respect of property was transferred in favour of Chennabasava Deshi Kendra Swami, without enquiry.

The second ground is that Section 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 prohibits any religious or charitable Institution holding agricultural property other than the Institution referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

In the instant case, as there is no institution in existence, the provision of sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act would not come into play and consequently, the order of grant is vitiated. In substance, the main allegation is by suppression of facts misrepresentation and by distortion of facts a false claim is laid in respect of land in question.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the representation given by the petitioner which is described as a complaint was required to have received serious consideration of the authorities. Prima facie, it is seen, if what petitioner says is substantiated, an action u/s 192-A of the Act will be necessary. I however, in this writ action what the petitioner seeks is limited relief to direct the respondents to consider his complaint and conduct a detailed enquiry in accordance with law. The circumstances warrant such relief to be granted. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is issued and is made absolute. The respondents are directed to act on the complaint vide Annexures-A1 and A2 and hold an enquiry in accordance with law.

Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned A.G.A. is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.