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 106(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 properly 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 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 mutation entry effected in the name of the 1st respondent herein in M.R. No. 7/1995-96 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 21 measuring 2 acres. The Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 30.10.2003 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, objections were filed.
The Deputy Commissioner, on consideration of the entire materials on record has come to the conclusion that the entries in the pahanis from the year 1968-69 in respect of the land in question disclosed the name of Maranayakanahalli Hanumanthaiayappa and Column Nos. 9 and 10 disclosed the mode of acquisition as ''Darkhast Moolaka''. Thus, the entries have continued without any break and therefore the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there was no room to doubt the genuiness of the entries at such distance of time. He has also referred to mutation entry bearing MR. 10/1995-96 which was accepted by the revenue Authorities in the name of the 1st respondent after the death of the predecessor. The Deputy Commissioner has recorded a specific finding that both in Column Nos. 9 and 12(2) name of Sri. Nagamuniyappa- 1st respondent herein came to be entered since 1996-96. Therefore, 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in not perusing the original documents and in noticing that the entries had 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 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 illegality can be attributed to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner declining to exercise suo motu revisional powers to set aside the entries that have stood the test of time and have been consistent in showing the names of private individuals for the last more than 50 yea Rs. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.