AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
The State Government is calling in question the order dated 28.10.2010 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 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. 88/04-05 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 161 measuring 4 acres. The Deputy Commissioner called upon the 1st respondent to file his objections. Pursuant to the notice issued, the 1st respondent appeared and filed his objections denying the allegation and asserting that the land was lawfully granted in favour of his predecessors in title and that it came to be acquired by him in accordance with law and hence, the allegations made were baseless and untenable.
The Deputy Commissioner, on consideration of the entire materials on record and the contentions put forward by the 1st respondent has come to the conclusion that there was no such illegality in the entries effected in the revenue records pertaining to the land in question as the same was supported by the order granting the land and the saguvalli chit stated to have been issued. In this regard the Deputy Commissioner has recorded his findings stating that copy of the extract of the GMF, Grant register pertaining to the grant of land in Sy. No. 21 (New No. 61) measuring 4 acres of Hosahalli Village disclosed that there were entries at Sl. No. 114/60-61 that the land was granted in favour of one Sri. Mohammed Fakruddin and three others. The entries made in the R.R. Register at Sl. No. 722 are noticed by the Deputy Commissioner. The grant made in favour of Sri. Mohammed Fakruddin by the Assistant Commissioner vide LND 1328/61-62 on 30.03.1962 has been mentioned as found by the Deputy Commissioner. Even in the Index of Land Register, necessary entries were recorded evidencing the said grant which corroborated the entries in the revenue records including the Record of Rights Register.
The Deputy Commissioner has also found that the pahanis with effect from 1968-69 reflected the name of Sri. Mohammed Fakruddin both in Column No. 9 and Column No. 12(2) that is to say the khatedar column and the cultivators column. It is also evident from the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that Sri. Mohammed Fakruddin has later on alienated the land in favour of 1st respondent who in turn has sold it in favour of Sri. K.M. Chetan. These sale transactions have been also reflected in the mutation entries effected pursuant thereof. In the light of these developments and the revenue entries recorded which disclosed sufficient basis for the entries of the names of original khatedar, Sri. Mohammed Fakruddin and subsequently the purchasers, the Deputy Commissioner has opined that there was no case made oat 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 Sri. Mohammed Fakruddin and subsequently 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 ease and establish the same before the competent Court by filing a suit in accordance with law, if 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 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 40 years.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.