K.N. Manjunath vs R.P. Laxman and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—Two acres of land in Sy. Nos. 7/3 and 10/2 of Beekanahalli Village of Somwarpet Taluk was granted by the Tahsildar

in favour of the appellant herein on 29-4-1977 and saguvali chit was also issued on 10-12-1980. When the appellant went near the land granted in

his favour, respondent 1 objected on the ground that the same land was also granted in his favour on 13-9-1968. Since the appellant entertained a

doubt in regard to the grant of very same land in favour of two parties, appellant approached the Tahsildar, Tahsildar conducted a detailed enquiry

and held that no land was granted in favour of respondent 1 in 1968. It was also held by him that the document produced by respondent 1 has got

up and fabricated document. Ultimately he also requested Lokayukta to hold an enquiry against the persons who are involved in issuance of a false

and fabricated saguvali chit in favour of respondent 1 and to initiate action against all the Government officials or any other persons who are behind

respondent 1. The said order was passed by the Tahsildar as per Annexure-C on 22-12-1988. The said order was challenged by respondent 1 by

filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri in HEV/APPEAL/88-89. The said appeal was also dismissed on 30-4-1991. Being

not satisfied with the dismissal of the appeal, respondent 1 also filed a second appeal u/s 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter

referred to as ''the Act'') before the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, Madikeri who also dismissed the appeal on 20-12-1993. Again,

respondent 1 filed a revision before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Revision Petition No. 65 of 1994 which also came to be

dismissed on 18-4-1996.

Being not satisfied with the dismissal of the first appeal, second appeal so also the revision, respondent 1 filed a writ petition before this Court in

Writ Petition No. 18410 of 1997 requesting this Court to set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy

Commissioner so also the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties held that when once land is granted,

Government loses its right to enquire into and that the parties have to settle ;heir dispute only before the Civil Court and therefore the writ petition

filed by respondent 1 was allowed. However, a liberty was given to the parties to approach the Civil Court to work out their rights in Civil Court.

The said order is now challenged before us.

Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge did not consider the order passed by the Tahsildar who has held that

no grant was made in favour of respondent 1. According to him, when the land in question was not granted in favour of respondent 1, Tahsildar

has got every right to look into whether the land was really granted in favour of respondent 1 or not and that the Tahsildar is empowered to initiate

action against respondent 1 for having created forged document in his favour as if the Government had granted land in his favour. Therefore, he

contends that there was no necessity for the learned Single Judge to direct the parties to approach the Civil Court since there was no grant made in

favour of respondent 1. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent 1 Sri Balakrishna Shastry contends that when once the lands are granted in

favour of two persons, Government loses its right to investigate and that the Tahsildar had no power to initiate action in the matter and to look into

whether the grant was made in favour of respondent 1 or not and he further contends that the appellant who has been granted with saguvali chit, he

has to work out his remedy only before the Civil Court and not before the revenue authorities. To support his view, he has also relied upon the

judgment of this Court in V. Channanarasimhaiah Vs. Additional Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk and Others, , Based on these submissions, he

requests this Court to dismiss the appeal.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties , what is to be considered by us in this appeal is: Whether the Tahsildar has got powers to

examine the correctness of the document produced by respondent 1?

It is not in dispute that both the parties are claiming the land under two different grants. The grant of the present appellant is of subsequent one

and the claim of respondent 1 is earlier. When the appellant entertained a doubt in regard to the grant of very same land in favour of two persons,

even before he could take possession of the land, has rightly approached the Tahsildar. If the Tahsildar had held that the land was genuinely

granted in favour of respondent 1, then the contentions urged by Mr. Balakrishna Shastry can be accepted by us. In the present case, the question

is whether really the grant was made in favour of respondent 1? The Tahsildar being a granting authority has got all powers under the Revenue Act

to investigate whether the grant made in favour of respondent 1 was genuine or not. Therefore, the question of powers of the Tahsildar in granting

saguvali chit in favour of respondent 1 cannot be held as without jurisdiction. u/s 24 of the Act Tahsildar being a revenue officer can exercise his

powers to determine any dispute between the State Government and any person or between the parties to any proceedings and the said procedure

has to be concluded as a Revenue Court. Similarly, Section 25 of the Act em- empowers inherent power to the Tahsildar to enquire into in the

interest of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Revenue court. Therefore, in the background of this case, what is to be examined by us is

whether the Tahsildar was empowered to conduct an enquiry in regard to the claim made by both the parties. Respondent 1 has contended that

the grant was made in his favour in 1968 and the grant in favour of the appellant is not in dispute. So, what was in dispute before the Tahsildar was

whether a land was granted in favour of respondent 1 by the Tahsildar or not. So, it is a dispute between the State Government and a person and it

is also a dispute between two persons viz., the appellant and respondent 1, they being the rival claimants in respect of grant of a particular land.

Therefore, under the circumstances, we have to hold that the Tahsildar was empowered to go into the question of alleged claim of respondent 1 as

genuine or not; by tracing his powers under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act. If the Tahsildar had found that the land was really granted in favour of

respondent 1 in the year 1968 as claimed by him, then the contention of Sri Balakrishna Shastry could have been accepted by us and as directed

by the learned Single Judge we could have directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Shastry is of no

assistance to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court, while dealing with the matter covered under the K.V.O. Act has held that the

Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to evict the appellant therein u/s 7 of the said Act. The lands were regranted in 1979 to the heirs of Hakdars and

divested from the State. This Court, while dealing with the said matter has not considered the powers of Sections 24 and 25 of the Act and that

there was no occasion for this Court to consider the powers of the Tahsildar under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act and in the said case since the

facts involved in the said case are altogether different from that of the present one. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in order to prevent the

abuse the process of the Revenue Court and in the ends of justice Tahsildar can exercise his power under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act to verify

whether there was a real grant in favour of respondent 1 or not. On enquiry, Tahsildar has held that there was no grant made in his favour. As a

matter of fact, Assistant Commissioner, while considering the appeal of respondent 1 has gone further ahead and held that saguvali chit dated 13-

9-1968 was issued on Sunday. This Court, cannot accept the contention of the respondent that saguvali chit could be issued even on Sunday

which is a general holiday for all the Government offices and it is to be noticed that saguvali chit produced by respondent 1 is in the form which has

come into existence subsequent to the date of grant or the date of saguvali chit. This clearly shows that there was no grant made in his favour.

Therefore, the Tahsildar was right in allowing the application of the appellant which has been rightly confirmed by all the authorities up to the

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, order of the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside as he has proceeded under the

impression that there was a grant made in favour of two parties.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Order dated 28-1-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18410 of 1997 is hereby

set aside and the order passed by the Tahsildar is hereby confirmed.