Karnataka High Court
M/S Umrah Developers vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.28878 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.19999 OF 2022
IN WP NO.28878 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. UMRAH DEVELOPERS
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.22/1,
MILLERS, TANK BUND ROAD,
KAVERIAPPA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. YUSUF SHERIFF.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ASHOK C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND PUC
K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
6. SRI. ASHOK M.
S/O LATE MARIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.357/9,
AKSHYANAGARA,
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AAG FOR
SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 10TH AUGUST, 2011 PASSED IN
RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.19999 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. ASHOK M.
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.357/9, AKSHYANAGARA,
BEGUR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND PUC,
K.G.ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
6. M/S. UMRA DEVELOPERS
NO.22/1, MILLERS TANK BUND ROAD
KAVERIAPPA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
REP. BY SRI. YUSUF SHERIFF.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AAG FOR
SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 O R5;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI YADUPATHI G., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PUBLIC AUCTION NOTIFICATION DATED 18TH MAY, 2007 MADE IN
NO.SPL.DC.PUC(AUCTION)CR/15/06-07 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 INSOFAR AS SL.NO.26 IS CONCERNED VIDE
ANNEXURE-C; QUASH THE CONFIRMATION OF PUBLIC ACTION
DATED 28TH/30TH JULY, 2007 MADE IN NO.RD 265 LGB 2007(P5)
MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M; AND ETC.
IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
In Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed in RRT(S)CR.236/2008- 09 by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District.
2. In Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the Public Auction Notification dated 18th May, 2007 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner; confirmation of Public Auction dated 28th/30th July, 2007 (Annexure-M); Certificate of Sale dated 17th June, 2020 (Annexure-N) issued by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner; and Official Memorandum dated 17th June, 2020 (Annexure-P) issued by the respondent No.2; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondent-Authorities to mutate the name of the petitioner in revenue records in respect of the subject land.
3. For the sake of convenience of the parties, the facts averred and rank of the parties in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 has been considered for deciding the lis between the parties. 6
4. The relevant facts for adjudication of these writ petitions are that;
IN WRIT PETITION NO.19999 OF 2022 The petitioner-Ashok M., pleaded that his father late Mariyappa was in cultivation of the land bearing Survey No.107 in 'B' Block of Maylasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk to an extent of 4 acres. It is stated in the petition that the subject land was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner on temporary basis and same was confirmed by Official Memorandum dated 29th January, 1957 (Annexure-A). In this regard, copy of grant certificate and Saguvali chit issue register are produced at Annexures 'A1' and 'A2' respectively and the copy of the sketch is produced at Annexure-B. It is the case of the petitioner-Ashok M., that the father of the petitioner has made representation to the respondent No.5-Tahsildar, seeking mutation in respect of the subject land, however, without the knowledge of the father of the petitioner, the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner proposed the land in question for Public Auction as per Notification dated 18th May, 2007 (Annexure-C). Hence, the father of the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.9550 7 of 2007 before this Court, challenging the Public Auction Notification dated 18th May, 2007 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner and this Court, by order dated 12th November, 2008 (Annexure-E), disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to consider the grievance of the father of the petitioner with regard to genuineness of the land granted in favour of the father of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.3 has conducted enquiry and passed order dated 10th August, 2011 (Annexure-G) holding that the grant made in favour of the father of the petitioner is genuine and accordingly, dropped the proceedings against the father of the petitioner. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner made an application seeking change of Khata, however, respondent-Authorities have not considered plea made by the father of the petitioner. Hence, the father of the petitioner was constrained to file Writ petition No.11426 of 2014, seeking direction to the respondent-Authorities to effect the Khata in respect of the subject land in his favour. This Court, by order dated 30th March, 2016 (Annexure-H), allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-Authorities to consider the claim of 8 the father of the petitioner within eight weeks. In the meanwhile, the father of the petitioner died on 14th June, 2016 and as such, the petitioner made an application dated 19th April, 2022 to the competent authority under Right to Information Act, seeking documents relating to the Public Auction conducted by the respondent-Authorities in respect of the subject land. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.2 had furnished letter of confirmation dated 28th/30th July, 2007 (Annexure-M); Certificate of Sale dated 17th June, 2020 (Annexure-N); and Official Memorandum of Conversion dated 17th June, 2020 (Annexure-P), relating to the Public Auction proposed in respect of lands by the respondent-Authorities. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent No.6-M/s Umrah Developers had participated in the auction proceedings and was adjudged as highest bidder and as such, certificate of Sale dated 17th June, 2020 (Annexure-N) was issued in respect of the subject land. It is also stated by the petitioner-Ashok M. that the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has issued Notification dated 17th June, 2020 (Annexure-P) in respect of conversion of the subject land in favour of the respondent No.6. Therefore, the petitioner contended that 9 though the land in question has been granted in favour of the father of the petitioner as per Official Memorandum dated 29th January, 1957 (Annexure-A) and grant certificate dated 24th February, 1966 (Annexure-A1), the respondent- Authorities ought to have transferred the Khata in favour of the father of the petitioner and further ought not to have proposed for public auction as per Public Auction Notification dated 18th May, 2007 (Annexure-C). Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner-Ashok M. has presented Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.28878 OF 2023 The petitioner in Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023 is the respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022. It is the case of the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers that, it had purchased the subject land in public auction pursuant to Public Auction Notification dated 18th May, 2007 and the possession of the subject land has been given to the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers by the respondent-Authorities and thereafter, order of conversion has been passed as per Official Memorandum dated 10 17th June, 2020, however, the petitioner came to know about order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3- Special Deputy Commissioner, wherein the respondent No.3 ordered to effect Khata of the subject land in favour of Mariyapppa (father of the respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023). Hence, the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers filed the writ petition No.28878 of 2023, challenging the order of the respondent No.3, by stating that the subject land was never been granted in favour of the father of the respondent No.6. Hence, Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023 is filed.
5. Heard Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Akarsh Kumar Gowda, appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 and respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023; Sri. V.G. Bhanuprakash, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5; Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Ashok C., appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023 and 11 on behalf of Sri. Yadupathi G., appearing for respondent No.6 in WP No.19999 of 2022.
6. Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Ashok M. in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 invited the attention of the Court to Official Memorandum dated 29th January, 1957 and argued that the respondent-Authorities have granted 4 acres of land each to the father of the petitioner as well as another grantee Sri. Hanumappa S/o Najundappa. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the grant certificate has been issued on 24th February, 1996 and name of the father of the petitioner finds place in the saguvali chit register and as such, there is no hindrance for the respondent-Authorities to issue Khata in favour of the father of the petitioner in terms of the sketch produced at Annexure-B in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022. It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the father of the petitioner had approached this Court, in Writ Petition No.9550 of 2007 and this Court, directed the respondent-Authorities to consider the case of the father of the petitioner with regard to genuineness of the grant and pursuant to the same, the respondent No.3 had 12 conducted an enquiry and after examination of entire records pertaining to the land in question, arrived at a conclusion that the claim made by the father of the petitioner with regard to the grant of land is genuine and therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent- Authorities ought not to have conducted the proposed auction proceedings in respect of the subject land. Learned Senior Counsel, by referring to the paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 30th March, 2016 passed in Writ Petition No.11426 of 2014 argued that this Court has considered the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed in case No.RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 by respondent No.3- Special Deputy Commissioner with regard to veracity of the grant made in favour of the father of the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion that the change of Khata in favour of the father of the petitioner is only a formality and accordingly, directed the respondent authorities to take decision in matter to carry out the necessary changes in the revenue records and issue Khata certificate in favour of the father of the petitioner. 13
7. Nextly, Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel while referring to the letter of confirmation dated 28th/30th July, 2007 and certificate of Sale dated 17th June, 2020, argued that the said proposed auction is contrary to the grant certificate issued in favour of Mariyappa (father of the petitioner-Ashok M.) and therefore, the claim made by the respondent No.6-M/s. Umrah Developers cannot be accepted. Learned Senior Counsel also refers to the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary to Government dated 19th April, 2024 and argued that the averments made in the said affidavit are far from truth and without looking into the original records and as such, learned Senior Counsel disputes the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department.
8. In respect of the arguments on Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023, Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 therein argued that the said petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the respondent-Government alone has to challenge the order dated 10th August, 2011 and the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers has 14 no locus standi to challenge the same. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023.
9. Per contra, Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6-M/s. Umrah Developers in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 argued that the documents referred to by the petitioner-Ashok M. in respect of grant of land made in favour of Mariyappa (father of the petitioner-Ashok M.) is farce and at no point of time, land in question was granted in favour of the said Mariyappa and as such, he disputes Official Memorandum dated 29th January, 1957 (Annexure-A); Grant Certificate dated 24th February, 1966 (Annexure-A1); Saguvali chit issue register (Annexure-A2); and Sketch (Annexure-B). It is contended by learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar that the copies at Annexure-A series are issued to the petitioner by looking into the Xerox copies and no original records have been verified before issuing the Annexure-A series. Referring to the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner, he submitted that the respondent No.3 himself has stated that, he had not seen the original records relating to the 15 grant made in respect of land bearing Survey No.107 of Mylasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and therefore the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3 is non-est.
10. Nextly, it is contended by D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel that the Government had taken decision to auction the various vacant lands including the subject land as per letter dated 28th /30th July, 2007 much before the order dated 12th November, 2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9550 of 2007 and pursuant to the same, the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers had participated in the auction proceedings and being a highest bidder, purchased the subject land for a sum of Rs.10,11,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore Eleven Lakhs only) and further, it is submitted that, land has been converted for residential purpose as per provision contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Therefore it is contended by learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar that the Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 requires to be dismissed, and consequently writ petition No.28878 of 2023 be allowed.
16
11. Sri. V.G. Bhanuprakash, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 30th January, 2024; 01st March, 2024; and 13th March, 2024 and submitted that, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department had filed affidavit dated 19th April, 2024. He further argued that there is no document with regard to grant of land made in favour of Mariyappa (father of Sri. Ashok M.) and at no point of time, the respondent-Authorities have issued the documents referred to at Annexure-A series and Annexure-B to the petitioner and therefore, he contended that the Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 is required to be dismissed.
12. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the original documents produced by learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 pertaining to the subject land. In support of the same, the averments made in the affidavit dated 19th April, 2024 filed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department have been considered in terms of the observation 17 made by this Court on 30th January, 2024; 01st March, 2024; and 13th March, 2024. Order dated 13th March, 2024 reads as under:
"ORDER On the previous date of hearing, this Court had requested the learned Addl. Advocate General to produce the original Grant Register of the Taluka, if not, the scanned copy of the original Grant Register.
Today, the learned Addl. Advocate General has filed a memo along with the scanned copy. The learned Addl. Advocate General submits that scanned copy is of the Saguvali Chit Issue Register and not the Grant Register.
Incidentally, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department is also present before this Court in order to file an Affidavit in another matter where similar directions were issued by this Court calling for information as to when was the first time that the Revenue Department issued directions to all the Deputy Commissioners and Tahsildars to scan the original Grant Registers, Saguvali Chit Issue Registers and Mutation Registers. When it was put to the Principal Secretary as to the contention of the Officers of the Bengaluru South Taluk, that there is no original Grant Register, the Principal Secretary was fair enough to admit that such a contention cannot be put forth.
This Court has requested the Principal Secretary to look into the matter in the present case and ensure that if 18 not the original Grant Register, the scanned copy of the Grant Register at least should be made available to this Court.
Re-list these matters on 20.30.2024 for compliance of the orders passed by this Court."
13. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is the claim of the petitioner-Ashok M. in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 that the subject land has been granted in favour of his father as per Official Memorandum dated 29th January, 1957 (Annexure-A); Grant Certificate dated 24th February, 1966 (Annexure-A1); Saguvali chit issue register (Annexure-A2); and Sketch (Annexure-B). The said grant has been confirmed by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 10th August, 2011 in case No.RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 in terms of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9550 of 2007. I have carefully examined the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3 Special Deputy Commissioner, wherein, the respondent No.3 has categorically stated that original grant records are not available in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk with 19 regard to entries in the Saguvali chit issue register in respect of the land bearing Survey No.107 of Mylasandra Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, wherein, 4 acres of land has been granted in favour of said Mariyappa and Sri. Hanumappa. The documents, verified and examined by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner in proceedings RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 are only the true copies as the same is forthcoming from the Order dated 10th August, 2011. It is also forthcoming from perusal of Annexure-A series in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 that those documents have been issued by the competent authority by looking into the xerox copies only and not verified with the original documents. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, appearing for the respondent No.6- M/s. Umrah Developers in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that, before issuing direction by this Court in Writ Petition No.9550 of 2007 dated 12th November, 2008, the respondent Authorities have taken decision to auction the various vacant lands along with the subject land as per Public Auction of Government Lands dated 18th May, 2007. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the said steps for 20 public auction was taken by the respondent Authorities in terms of the letter dated 28th/30th July, 2007 (Annexure-M). This would makes it clear that, it is the after thought of Mariyappa (father of Sri. Ashok M.) to file Writ Petition Nos.9550 of 2007 and 11426 of 2014, seeking direction to the respondent-Authorities to issue Khata in his favour. It is also pertinent to mention herein, the said Mariyappa has not taken any steps for change of Khata, immediately after issuing Annexure-A series, if so genuine, and efforts have been made after six years, which would indicate that, no grant of land has been made to the said Mariyappa.
14. That apart, the certificate of Sale in Form 41 dated 17th June, 2020 was issued in favour of the respondent No.6-M/s. Umrah Developers, who is the highest bidder in the public auction for a final bid amount of Rs.10,11,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore Eleven Lakhs only). It is also not in dispute that the land in question has been converted for residential purpose as per Official Memorandum dated 17th June, 2020 at the instance of the application made by the respondent No.6-M/s. Umrah Developers. It is also noted that the land in question to an extent of 17 acres 21 in Survey No.107 of Mylasandra Village, Bengaluru South Taluk is vacant land as per the report dated 13th April, 2007 (Annexure- R1). Check-list prepared by the respondent-Authorities before the auction proceedings in respect of the subject land establish the fact that the subject land is vacant and only two persons have encroached the land in question viz. Siddareddy and Joseph (as per Annexure-R2). In that view of the matter, as the subject land has been converted for residential purpose, no interference is called for in the Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022, in view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. MUNINARAYANA SWAMY AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2012 KAR 3428 and in the case of J.M. NARAYANA AND OTHERS V. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60.
15. Nextly, insofar as the submission made by Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 with regard to genuineness of 22 documents at Annexure-A series, I have carefully examined the original records provided by the learned Additional Government Advocate and the averments made in the affidavit dated 19th April, 2024 filed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. Paragraphs 24 to 30 of the affidavit reads as under:
"24. I submit that the name of the petitioner's father Mariyappa is not found in the Saguvali Chit Issue Register for the year 1930 to 1932 and 1969 to 1978 and also name of the petitioner's father Mariyappa is not found in Form-2 (Darkasth Vahi) for the year 1945-1948 and 1983-1984 to 1995-1996 in survey number 107 of Mylsandra Village and also in hand written Pahani and Mutation Register.
25. I submit that, with respect of the above survey number 107 of Mylasandra village; the original record of GMF grant register is not mentioned in office indexing and cataloguing.
26. I submit that, as per the Saguvali Chit Issue Register available in the Tahsildar office and also as per the scanned copies of the Saguvali Chit Issue Register available the name of one Dayananda, Survey No.11, Kyalasanahalli, village K.R.Pura Taluk is entered in Sl.No.64/1965-66 but not Mariyappa as claimed by petitioner which stated that 23 his father's name is mentioned in Sl.No.64-1965-66 in Saguvali Chit Issue Register available in the Tahsildar office for the year 1956-57 to 1965-66.
27. I submit that, the office of Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk is functioning in Kandaya Bhavana, K.G.Road since 05.02.2012. Prior to this ,t he office was functioning in Kids Kemp Building, opposite State Bank of Mysore. The document produced by the petitioner which is attested Xerox copies of Saguvali Chit Issue Register vide endorsement No.RKCR/1071/2010-11 dated 31.03.2010 for the year 1956-57 to 1965-66. The endorsement seal of office indicates that Office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Kandaya Bhavan, K.G.Road has issued it, the endorsement issued to the applicant is prima facie found to be not genuine.
28. I submit that there is no endorsement issued to petitioner as per the endorsement issue register 2010, which is indexed and catalogued in record room.
29. I submit that the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District has passed an order to effect the Khata change in favour of Shri Mariyappa s/o Gudappa in respect of 4 acres out of auctioned land of 17 Acres in S.No.107, Mylasandra Village. In view of the above, M/s.Umarah Developers has filed W.P.No.28878/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka requesting to set aside and quash the Order No.R.R.T(S)CR/236/2008-09 dated 24 10.08.2011 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District.
30. I submit that for the said case in respect of Order No.R.R.T(S)CR/236/2008-09, dated 10.08.2011, passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, the said file is found in record room and the same is verified to find only Xerox copies of the relevant documents and no original documents available in the file."
16. In view of the explanation offered by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department in his affidavit dated 19th April, 2024 and on perusal of the documents produced along with the affidavit, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioner-Ashok M. in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 cannot be accepted. It is needless to state that the petitioner-Ashok M. in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022, except producing the Annexure-A series, no mutation register including RTC extracts pertaining to the subject land is produced in the writ petition. Neither the petitioner-Ashok M. nor his father had paid tax in respect of the subject land. That apart, as the subject land is a Government land and the Government had taken decision to auction various lands along with the subject land as per letter 25 dated 28th/30th July, 2007 much before the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.9550 of 2007 and 11426 of 2014 and in those writ petitions, the respondent No.6-M/s. Umrah Developers (successful bidder of the public auction in respect of the subject land) has not been arraigned as a party, so also, as there is no original record in the office of the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk with regard to the grant of land made in favour of Mariyappa (father of Sri. Ashok M.). I am opinion that the writ petition filed by the son of alleged grantee, cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the entire proceedings conducted by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner in RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 based on the Xerox copies, as the respondent No.3 himself had observed in the order that the original records are not available in the Office of the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk. Therefore I am of the view that there is no merit in writ petition No.19999 of 2022 and accordingly, same is liable to be dismissed.
17. As the writ petition No.19999 of 2022 is liable to dismissed as devoid of merits in terms of the observation made 26 above, holding that the proceedings dated 10th August, 2011 conducted by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner in RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 is based on the true copies and not on the basis of original records as stated by the respondent No.3- Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers in Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023 has made out a case for interference. The explanation offered by the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers with regard to condonation of delay in challenging the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner, is accepted as the petitioner-M/s Umrah Developers is not a party to the writ petitions filed by Mariyappa (father of petitioner in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022). In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner is without application of mind and thereby held to be non-est and further passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 is dismissed;27
2) Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023 is allowed;
3) Order dated 10th August, 2011 passed in RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 by the respondent No.3-
Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District is hereby set-aside.
SD/-
JUDGE ARK