AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
The State Government is calling in question the order dated 21.08.2010 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, thereby dropping the suo motu proceedings initiated by him u/s 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ''the Act'').
The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore addressed a letter dated 13.10.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner requesting to take necessary action with regard to the entries effected in the revenue records in the names of some private individuals, of the property allegedly belonging to the Government comprised in Sy.No. 21 of Hosahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk so as to take steps to correct the revenue entries.
Based on the said letter, the Deputy Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings u/s 136(3) of the Act to examine the genuineness of the entries made in the revenue records as per the mutation entry effected in the name of the 1st respondent herein in M.R.No. 86/2005-06 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 21/P7 measuring 2 acres. The Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 30.10.2008 to the 1st respondent calling upon him to show cause why the entries made in the revenue records in his name should not be cancelled. Pursuant to the same, objections were filed.
The Deputy Commissioner, has examined the entire materials and has recorded a finding that a registered sale deed dated 29.11.1945 had been executed by one Sri. Sheik Amanulla in favour of Smt. Ramijabiyanima at an undisputed point of time on 29.11.1945 wherein it was recited that the land was purchased in auction by the said Sri. Sheik Amanulla and hence there was no room for doubting the said recitals which were probablised by the conduct of the parties. Subsequently, the purchaser, Smt. Ramijabiyanima had sold an extent of 1 acre in favour of Sri. Sheik Peeran Sab under a sale deed dated 03.12.1959. Further Sri. Sheik Peeran Sab had sold the land in favour of Sri. Pillappa on 28.12.1972 and subsequently. Sri. Pillappa executed a registered sale deed on 30.11.1976 in favour of Sri. Mohammed Haneef, who in turn sold the land in favour of Sri. K.N. Manjunath. Thereafter. Sri. K.N. Manjunath executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sri. B. Sreenivasaiah, the 1st respondent herein. By virtue of the above, the Deputy Commissioner has opined that there was no case made out for interference in exercise of the revisional powers u/s 136(3) of the Act, to set aside those entries.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in not perusing the original documents and that the entries have been effected fraudulently in the revenue record, such contentions cannot be entertained in the facts of the present case. In light of the findings of the Deputy Commissioner, illegality is committed by the Deputy Commissioner in passing the impugned order as the order is based on materials on record that disclosed sufficient basis for the entries in favour of the 1st respondent. There is no basis for the allegation of fraud made.
If at ail the petitioner intends to establish that the entries were got effected by playing fraud in collusion with the officers, then the petitioner has to lay a proper foundation for such case and establish the same before the competent Court by filing a suit in accordance with law, if at all only such claim could be laid as per law. No illegalities can be attributed to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner declining to exercise the suo motu revisional powers to set aside the entries that haw stood the test of time and have been consistent in showing the names of private individuals for the last more than 65 years
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.