AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
The State Government is calling in question 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 and to take steps to correct the revenue entires.
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 mutation entry effected in the name of the 1st respondent herein in M.R.No. 81/2005-06 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 21/P11 measuring 2 acres. The Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 13.02.2007 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 notice issued, the 1st respondent appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and produced certified copy of Saguvalli Chit Issue Register for the year 1978-79 to show that the land in Sy. No. 21 measuring 2 acres granted as per the D.C.O.M.No.LND.SR.478/1978-79 dated 16.09.1978 and T.O.No.LND.SR.98/78-79 dated 19.11.1978. Several other documents including the mutation register extracts bearing MR.No. 81/2005-06 and pahanis/RTCs from 1994 to 2010 were also produced.
The Deputy Commissioner, after examining the documents produced has come to the conclusion that the Tahsildar, Devanahalli had issued saguvalli chit for the year 1978-79 and the entries therein disclosed that one Sri. Abdul Rehman S/o. Subhan Sheriff was granted land vide orders dated 7.9.1978 and 25.11.1978 and that he had paid the upset price based on which the saguvalli chit had been issued. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a finding teat the particulars mentioned in the saguvalli chit issue register showed that the land was granted to favour of Sri. Abdul Rehman.
The Deputy Commissioner has further referred to the RTC extracts to record a finding than in both Column No. 9 and 12(2), name of Sri. Abdul Rehman has been recorded and continued. After the death of Sri. Abdul Rehman, inheritance khata of the land was effected in the name of his wife. Subsequently, his wife sold the land in favour of the 1st respondent under a registered sale deed dated 20.09.2005. By virtue of the sale deed, mutation entry came to be effected and accepted in his name vide M.R.No. 81/2005-06 dated 28.12.2005. In the record of rights, his name came to be recorded. From these particulars, the Deputy Commissioner has found that there was sufficient basis for the entries recorded in the name of the private individuals and 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 light of the findings of the Deputy Commissioner. No 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 all the petitioner intends to establish that the entries were got effected by playing fraud and in collusion with the officers, then the petitioner has to lay a proper foundation for such a case and establish the same before the competent Court by filing a suit in accordance with law, if only such a 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 have stood the test of time.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.