AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—1. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaya Holla, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 49844 - 47/2015. The learned counsel Shri L M Panduranga Swamy appearing for the petitioner in the connected writ petition W.P. No. 51519/2015 and Shri K G Sadashivaiah appearing for respondent No. 5 in the respective petitions.
It is the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 49844-847/2015, that he is a co-owner in possession and enjoyment of land bearing old Sy. No. 47, now bearing Sy. No. 100 of Kachamaranahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring 8 acres 32 guntas. This was purchased, according to the petitioner, by his father late Thimmarayappa under five registered sale deeds executed between the period 1960 and 1977. On the death of his father in the year 2003 the petitioner and other family members have inherited the said properties. The said land was originally said to have been granted to one Mekeramaiah. Since Mekeramaiah was in possession of a total extent of 11 acres 23 guntas, the revenue records were said to have been transferred in his name in respect of the said extent. Subsequently, the said extent of land which was in the possession of Mekeramaiah was assigned a new survey number - 100. The hissa tippani in respect of the said land reflected that the entire extent that was in the possession of Mekeramaiah which was assigned a new survey No. 100, and apart from the said extent, Mekeramaiah had no land whatsoever in the remaining extent of land bearing Sy. No. 47. It was continued in the name of the Government. The bifurcation of the land as Sy. No. 100 is also reflected in the village map. Mekeramaiah is said to have died during the year 1944. Subsequently the land appears to have been partitioned amongst his widow and five sons under a registered partition deed dated 09.01.1960. In the said partition 8 acres 32 guntas of land is said to have fallen to the share of Chowdamma, Siddaveerappa, Nanjundappa and Chowdappa @ Munichowdaiah. Subsequently the widow of Mekeramaiah and her three sons referred to herein above are said to have sold the 8 acres 32 guntas of land in favour of the father of the petitioner under the following registered sale deeds shown in tabular form thus:
The remaining portion of the land in Sy. No. 100 which had fallen to the share of the other two sons of Mekeramaiah, namely, Ramaiah and Chikka Chowdappa was said to have been sold by them in favour of one V Muniswamy Reddy. Therefore, the entire extent that was in the possession of Mekeramaiah which was partitioned between his widow and sons, as aforesaid had been sold and there was no land left over for the family of Mekeramaiah. Pursuant thereto on the basis of registered sale deeds the katha has been effected in the name of Thimmarayappa as per Mutation Register entry Nos. MT No. 13/60-61, MT No. 16/60-61, MT No. 3/73-74, MT No. 4/73-74 and MT No. 8/78-79.
The petitioner has produced copies of the record of rights. Subsequent to the date of purchase Thimmarayappa is said to have continued in possession and after him the petitioners are said to have continued in possession. However, the 5th respondent, claiming to be the grand son of Mekeramaiah, is said to have made a representation dated 01.01.2013, to the 3rd respondent claiming that the land bearing Sy. No. 100 was originally granted in favour of Mekeramaiah and that out of an extent of 11 acres 37 guntas what has been sold in favour of Thimmarayappa was only 3 acres 30 guntas and that the remaining extent of 6 acres 38 guntas continued to be owned by Mekeramaiah and that inadvertently his name has been left out from Column No. 9 of the RTC and hence is said to have requested rectification of the same. He had also sought to produce an encumbrance certificate reflecting only part of the sale transactions that had taken place in respect of the said land. The petitioners'' allegation is that the third respondent has deliberately suppressed the other sales effected in favour of Thimmarayappa and therefore had succeeded in misleading the authorities as to the extent of 6 acres 38 guntas still continuing to remain in the name of Mekeramaiah. It is on the basis of this misrepresentation, according to the petitioner, that the Deputy Tahsildar had submitted a report to the Special Tahsildar confirming that the Mekeramaiah continued to own the extent of 6 acres 5 guntas and the record of rights could be corrected to the extent reflecting his name. Acting on the basis of the said report which was forwarded to the second respondent seeking approval to carry out the corrections and after obtaining such approval the entries were said to have been effected in favour of the third respondent. This entire exercise had been done without notice to the petitioner. It was by chance that the petitioner had approached the third respondent seeking rectification of the record of rights and it was then learnt that orders had been passed by the second respondent and the third respondent directing change of the revenue entries in favour of the 5th respondent. The petitioner therefore had immediately preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The second respondent, however, had dismissed the appeal and it is the petitioner''s case that the records were not thoroughly examined to address the case at all. Though a further revision petition was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, the orders passed by the second and third respondent were confirmed. It is that which is sought to be challenged in the present petition.
The respondent seeks to assert that the petitioner''s case that Mekeramaiah was granted 27 acres 20 guntas and even after the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner herein there remained a large extent of land which was further sold and yet there remained further extent of 6 acres 5 guntas. It is in respect of this remaining extent of 6 acres 5 guntas of which corrections were sought, since intermittently the respondent No. 5''s name was left out in the records.
It is contended that it was on a close examination of the record the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 after having obtained a report from the Deputy Tahsildar, have proceeded to carry out the corrections as prayed for. There is no illegality and this has been affirmed not only by the Assistant Commissioner, but also by the Deputy Commissioner and this concurrent findings in favour of 5th respondent cannot lightly be set aside in this present petition.
The learned counsel would seek to further supplement his case by producing additional documents along with the statement of objections sought to be filed in the connected petition. However, the learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaya Holla would take this Court through the several documents which were not available to the revenue authorities while considering the application of the petitioner which if perused would indicate that the 5th respondent was proceeding fraudulently and by suppressing material facts and the documents produced would also indicate the claim set up by the 5th respondent was false and misleading. In this regard he would submit that since the petitioner was never heard nor any notice was served, proceeding on the basis that the petitioner had no interest in the extent of 6 acres 5 guntas as claimed by the 5th respondent has lead to a miscarriage of justice as Mekeramaiah had only be granted 11 acres 37 guntas. All of which had been sold under the sale deeds referred to herein above and hence, on the face of it, the petition would have to be allowed and the remedy if any of the 5th respondent, would be to file a civil suit for declaration of title to the land which does not exist and hence would seek that the petition be summarily allowed.
Though the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently seek to contest the claim of the petitioners and would assert that Mekeramaiah had indeed been granted 27 acres 20 guntas of land. It would be necessary in the face of the several documents that are produced along with this petition to be taken into account in accepting the case of the 5th respondent. Particularly, the original grant made in favour of Mekeramaiah which appears to be only to the extent of 11 acres 37 guntas and which has been affirmed by the 5th respondent himself in his representation seeking correction of revenue entries to the extent 6 acres 5 guntas which would belie the claim that Mekeramaiah was granted 27 acres 20 guntas of land.
In the light of the above, the petition is summarily allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Tahsildar who would do well to take into consideration the material now produced by the petitioners and to address the case on its merits, with circumspection. In view of the glaring circumstance that Mekeramaiah may have been granted only 11 acres 37 guntas all of which has been conveyed under sale deeds produced by the petitioners. Therefore, the Tahsildar shall after issuance of notice to the petitioners herein and all concerned shall proceed to hear the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The connected petition in W.P. No. 51519/2015 is summarily allowed, in the light of the above findings as the petitioner herein is similarly aggrieved. The impugned orders are quashed.