AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—Smt. M.C. Akkamahadevi, the learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 8. Notice to the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is dispensed with. The petitioners have made the following prayers:-
a) To issue a Writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate order to quash the impugned and alleged order passed by the Special Thasildhar in RRT (dispute) 162/10-11 Dated 11/01/2012 copy at ANNEXURE-"A" and so also prays to pass an order to restore the Khatha/RTC in the name of the Original Khatedhar Smt. Rangamma W/o Hanumantha as in mutation order bearing MR No. 97/10-11 Dt. 16/06/2011.
b) To allow the WRIT PETITION with Costs. As these petitioners have incurred loss to tune of Rs. 20 lakhs + --(Twenty Lakhs +) and put into mental agony for the last 6 years which cannot be compensated at any means.
c) To pass an order to compensate an Amount of Rupees 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) towards the loss that has been incurred by these petitioners in acting against alleged mischievous and illegal activities and harassment of R2 to R7 again and again even after setting it restored vide MR 97/10-11 Dt. 16/06/2011.
d) To pass necessary direction to Rajankunte Police Station/Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural to submit the final report and accordingly direct the Police to provide police protection to these law binding petitioners who are being continuously harassed and threatened.
e) To call for records in illegal RRT (Dispute) 162/10-11 order Dt. 11/01/2012 at Annexure-A.
f) To call for records in RA (BNA) 408/06-07 order Dt. 21/10/2010 at Annexure-N.
g) To call for records in mischievous Compromise Decree Order Dated 17/3/2008 of the City Civil Court Rural District, Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) in O.S. 142/07.
h) To call for records in RA (BNA) 13/12-13 order dated 27/11/2012.
i) To initiate stem disciplinary action against the errant Revenue Officials indulged in massive irregularities and illegal rising of RRT dispute case intentionally without there being any provision in KLR Acts and practice, which is only in the interest of Higher incentives and passing such illegal orders by Over Ruling earlier Orders and interfering with cases subjected to rights and Title, as the revenue Courts have got no jurisdictional powers to entertain cases pertaining to rights and Title as per orders passed in many such orders of this Hon''ble Court.
j) To quash the order at Annexure-A and so also pass an order to restore the Khatha of the land in question in the name of Smt. Rangamma W/o Hanumantha, as that which stood earlier/prior to the impugned order at Annexure-A.
k) To pass an order so as to vacate the illegal occupant from illegal position who has illegally occupied out land mischievously, that which was in our possession and custody from 1947/48 to 2006 without any litigation and problems since decades.
l) To issue or pass any such other writ or directions that this Hon''ble Court deems to grant and fit to the circumstances of the cases, in the interest of justice and equity.
The petitioners'' grievance over the Tahsildar''s order, dated 11.1.2012 (Annexure-A) has to be ventilated by way of an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (''the said Act'' for short). As far as the prayer for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- is concerned, the same has to be agitated by way of filing a suit for damages in the competent civil court. If the petitioners have any grievance over the compromise decree, the same has to be challenged in the appropriate proceedings. The petitioners'' grievance over the refusal of the authorities to restore the Khathas in their favour and/or inaction being shown by the authorities in the matter are to be ventilated by filing a Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 136(3) of the said Act.
As far as the petitioners'' complaint of massive irregularities is concerned, it is open to them to file a complaint with the Lokayuktha. It is also open to the petitioners to represent to the Head of the Department, that is, the Principal Secretary (Revenue).
It is trite that the revenue entries do not confer title upon anybody; they are only reflection of the rights which have already accrued to a party. Further, they are not final. They are always to be brought in conformity with the judgment and decree which a party may obtain from the competent civil court.
As far as the petitioners'' request for a direction to the police to provide protection to them is concerned, I deem it necessary to direct the respondent No. 8 to give necessary protection to the petitioners depending upon threat perception of the police. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.