AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
In this writ petition the State Government has called in question the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District on 21.07.2010 in revision petition No. 1068/2009-10 filed u/s 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ''the Act'') thereby dismissing the revision petition. At the instance of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk the Deputy Commissioner had initiated proceedings u/s 136(3) of the Act. He has examined the correctness of the entry made in the name of the second respondent herein in respect of 4 acres 32.08 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 1 of Muddanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk.
The report of the Tahsildar addressed to the Deputy Commissioner which is instrumental for initiation of proceedings u/s 136(3) of the Act disclosed that the Tahsildar was of the view that the entries made in respect of 4 acre 32.08 guntas of land in the pahani in favour of the second respondent and also in favour of one N.B. Jagannatha. son of N.C. Basavaraj appeared to be illegal. It was observed that as per the report submitted by A.T. Ramaswamy Committee and the sketch prepared the same appeared to have been encroached and therefore action had to be initiated in terms of the provisions contained u/s 136(3) of the Act.
Pursuant to the same, the Deputy Commissioner issued notice to the second respondent. The second respondent appeared and filed objections denying the allegations made and asserting that the land was initially granted in favour of one Abdul Khader under Darkhast as per No. LND.SR.2/32-33 dated 28.03.1932 and subsequently as per R.R. No. 118 the land has been conveyed in favour Smt. Begum Jan by inheritance and thereafter by virtue of the registered Sale Deed No.20022/80-81 dated 24.03.1981, the said land came to be transferred in favour of Sri N.C. Patel, son of Chikka Kempaiah to an extent of 4 acres 15 guntas. By another sale deed dated 24.03.1981 an extent of 5 acres came to transferred in favour of N.C. Patel and mutations came t be accepted in this regard vide MR. No.4/80-81. It is further stated in the objections that subsequently in a partition that took place the present second respondent got 4 acres 32 1/2 guntas and since 1980-81 he was in possession of the land and had converted it into a Grape garden. He has narrated several facts in the objections touching upon the nature of his enjoyment and the developments that he has made over the same.
The Deputy Commissioner having considered the objections has recorded a specific finding that the land in question was initially granted in favour of one Abdul Khader and several transactions had subsequently taken place as the land came to be conveyed in favour of different persons and that the land was developed and enjoyed as a private land. The Deputy Commissioner has also found that the grant in favour of Sri Abdul Khader was as back as in 1932-33 and after his demise his wife was enjoying the same by inheritance and later on she along with her children alienated the land in favour of Sri N.C. Patel by executing a sale deed in the year 1981. Transfer was recorded by effecting mutation entry. The partition which has thereafter taken place between the family of the purchaser, is also recorded by way of accepting mutation. Thus referring to these revenue records which have come in to existence at an undisputed point of time, the Deputy Commissioner has found that there was no substance in the allegation made stating that the lands had been illegally encroached. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly dismissed the revision petition refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him u/s 136(3) of the Act. He has further found that after lapse of 45 years from the date of the entries recorded in favour of number of persons there was no justification to upset the same affecting the interest created in favour of different parties.
I do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction committed by the Deputy Commissioner which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. At any rate the nature of the dispute raised cannot be a subject matter of enquiry before the Deputy Commissioner by way of revision or before this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. If the petitioner is entitled in law he can avail the remedy of approaching the Civil Court to establish their rights. Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the above observation.