Padma Dore and Others vs The State of Karnataka Department of Revenue

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Petitioners who are the legal representatives of late Thiruvan Dore have filed these Writ Petitions assailing the order dated 12.10.2011 passed in Case No. RRT(A)CR/44/2009-10 by the 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore insofar as agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 64/P61 measuring 2 acres at Bhootanahally Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk is concerned. It is the case of the petitioners that late Thiruvan Dore was the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 64/P61. Out of this extent, 1 acre 20 guntas was granted to him by an order of grant dated 29.6.1979 made by the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk. Subsequently, Form No. 10 was also issued in respect of the said grant on 21.5.1980. The remaining extent of 2 acres is said to have been purchased by late Thiruvan Dore from one Munivenkatappa under a registered sale deed dated 8.5.1980. It is stated that Munivenkatappa in turn purchased the land from one Smt. Nandyalamma under a sale deed dated 30.11.1977. It is also averred that Nandyalamma was granted that extent of land by a grant certificate dated 10.12.1960 by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk. It is further stated that the name of late Thiruvan Dore was mutated in the revenue records in respect of both extents of land.

When the matter stood, it appears that the 3rd respondent Tahsildar had issued a communication to the 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner alleging that late Thiruvan Dore had been in illegal possession of land bearing Sy. No. 64/P61 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas. On the basis of the said communication/report of the Tahsildar, 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings u/s 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Petitioners on receiving notice in respect of the proceedings had appeared and filed their objections. It is stated that they were able to prove by way of documents i.e., the grant of occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 64/P61 but as far as the purchase of the land to an extent of 2 acres in the very same survey number by late Thiruvan Dore is concerned, though the documents of sale were produced by the petitioners, they were not able to produce the grant certificate dated 10.12.1960 issued in favour of Smt. Nandyalamma from whom the extent of 2 acres was ultimately purchased by late Thiruvan Dore through an intermittent vendor. Since no grant certificate dated 10.12.1960 on which reliance was placed by the petitioners was produced before the 2nd respondent, that authority ordered that insofar as the said 2 acres are concerned, it should be treated as government land and the names of the petitioners must be deleted from the revenue records. Being aggrieved by that order, petitioners have preferred these Writ Petitions.

I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioners and learned AGA for respondents and perused the material on record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there were documents with regard to grant of land in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No. 64/P61 is concerned and the 2nd respondent authority had accepted those documents and dropped the proceedings in respect of that extent. As far as 2 acres of land is concerned, as the petitioners did not produce the relevant documents, petitioners'' case was not accepted. He submits that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, petitioners have obtained the certified copy of the order of grant dated 10.12.1960 made in favour of Smt. Nandyalamma from whom the late Thiruvan Dore had ultimately obtained the ownership and possession of that extent of land through an intervening vendor. He therefore contends that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to place before the 2nd respondent authority the order of grant dated 10.12.1960 as well as other relevant documents in order to prove the case of the petitioners.

Learned AGA however objects for granting further opportunity and he contends that despite granting sufficient opportunities, petitioners were unable to prove their case.

A copy of the grant certificate dated 10.12.1960 in Form No. 1 has been annexed as Annexure-E to the Writ Petition. Petitioner''s counsel also states that certified copy of the grant certificate has been issued to the petitioners by the competent authority and therefore the petitioners would like to appear before the 2nd respondent and submit the same. Having regard to the fact that the 2nd respondent had accepted the case of the petitioners based on the grant of occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land by the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk on 29.6.1979 and had not accepted the case of the petitioners in respect of 2 acres of land in the very same survey number on account of lack of material produced by the petitioners, I am of the view that now that the grant certificate has been obtained by the petitioners insofar as 2 acres of land is concerned, an opportunity has to be granted to the petitioners to produce the said certificate of grant as well as other relevant documents before the 2nd respondent. Petitioners'' counsel states that the petitioners would appear before the 2nd respondent authority on 22.01.2014 without insisting on a fresh notice from that authority along with the relevant documents. If so, 2nd respondent authority to consider the documents produced by the petitioners and to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law. In the result, Writ Petitions are disposed of in the following terms:

The order of 2nd respondent dated 12.10.2011 insofar as it pertains to 2 acres in Sy. No. 64/P61 is concerned is quashed.

Petitioners are directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 22.01.2014 along with the relevant documents without insisting on a fresh notice from that authority.

If the petitioners so appear, 2nd respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioners in regard to 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 64/P61 in accordance with law and on the documents to be produced by the petitioners.

No costs.