Sri S. Shankarachari vs State of Karnataka and Others

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—The order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore East Taluk in proceedings initiated u/s 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 dated 24.7.2012, is assailed in this Writ Petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the full and absolute owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 281, presently 281/P2 of Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli presently Bangalore East Taluk measuring 2 acres. It is stated that this land was acquired under a registered sale deed dated 21.6.2004. That originally the Government had granted this land to the father of respondents 6-9 by order dated 19.12.1978 bearing No. B.DIS.LND(3)SR.148/78-79 by order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore. It is stated that subsequently the grant certificate was issued in the name of the father of respondents 6-9 Sri. Ujjanappa. Thereafter, the name of Sri. Ujjanappa was mutated in the revenue records. After his death, the name of his widow Smt. Jayamma was entered in the revenue records and on her passing away on 13.11.2003, the name of respondents 6-9 have been entered in the revenue records by virtue of MR.52/2003-04. Respondents 6-9 sold the said land in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 21.6.2004. Petitioner sought entry of his name in the revenue records. Mutation proceedings were initiated and initially Tahsildar declined to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, Assistant Commissioner who allowed the appeal by his order dated 05.05.2007 and directed the Tahsildar to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar entered the name of the petitioner in the revenue records but at the same time referred the matter to the 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner. The latter initiated proceedings u/s 136(3) of the Act which has culminated in the order dated 27.04.2012 impugned in this Writ Petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned G.P. for respondents 1 to 5. Respondents 6-9 who are the vendors of the petitioner are served and are unrepresented.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the land in question is presently within the jurisdiction of Bangalore East Taluk. But originally the said land was within the territorial jurisdiction of Bangalore South Taluk. However, as the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk while passing order in favour of the petitioner referred the matter to the 2nd respondent u/s 136(3) of the Act, the Tahsidlar, Bangalore East Taluk was heard in the matter. That officer has stated that there are no documents to show that the land in question was granted to late Sri. Ujjanappa. It is contended that as the land in question was originally within the jurisdiction of Bangalore South Taluk, obviously, the records pertaining to the grant made to late Sri. Ujjanappa would not be available in the revenue office of Bangalore East Taluk. In this context, he has drawn my attention to Annexure-O which is issued by the 2nd respondent to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk subsequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 09.08.2012 with regard to the records pertaining to the land in question. It is contended that such a notice ought to have been issued prior to the disposal of the proceedings initiated u/s 136(3) of the Act and not subsequently. Under the circumstances, it is contended that the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order without calling for the records from the appropriate authority i.e., the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. He hence contended that the impugned order may be quashed and the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh after taking into consideration the documents pertaining to the land in question from the office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 however supported the impugned order.

It is noted that the land in question is Sy. No. 281/P2 of Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, which is stated to be presently in Bangalore East Taluk. Admittedly, the said land was originally coming within the jurisdiction of Bangalore South Taluk. Since the petitioner purchased the land in the year 2004 and on account of change in jurisdiction, he made an application before the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk for change in mutation entries. It is not known as to whether the records pertaining to the land in question which were in the custody of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk have been transferred to the custody of Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk. In this regard, the stand of the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk is that there are no such records available with that authority in respect of the grant made to the father of the vendors of the petitioner. However petitioner''s counsel states that the petitioner is in possession of certificate of saguvali chit issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. Therefore, 2nd respondent ought to have considered the documents pertaining to the land in question available with the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk as well as the documents which are available with the petitioner and then to pass an order. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed. 2nd respondent is directed to hear the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore also as well as all other concerned parties including the petitioner and thereafter to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 11.12.2013 without insisting on a fresh notice from the said authority.

Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.