Sri. Govindappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6832 Kant

                          1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                      PRESENT
  THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                         AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
          WRIT APPEAL NO.1356/2021 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN

SRI GOVINDAPPA
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MUTHKUR
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
TALUK HOSKOTE
DISTRICT BENGALURU-562114                ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI K B S MANIAN, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI KARTHIK V, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR-561203

3 . THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF
UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF LAND
HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE-562114
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
                              2



4 . SRI VENKATESH
S/O LATE KEMPANNA
MAJOR

5 . SRI LAKSHMINARAYAN @ VIJAY
S/O RAMAIAH, MAJOR

6 . SRI HARISH
S/O KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR

7 . SRI SHIVARAJ
S/O MUNIRAJU, MAJOR

8 . SMT. VIMALAMMA
W/O RAMAIAH, MAJOR

9 . SRI ARUN KUMAR
S/O APPAJAPPA, MAJOR

10 . SMT. SRIRANGAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, MAJOR

ALL ARE R/AT MUTHKUR VILLAGE
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S RAJASHEKARA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 3)

      THIS   WRIT   APPEAL   IS   FILED    U/S   4   OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 24/11/2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.14937/2021
(KLR-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED
FOR    BY    ALLOWING    THIS     APPEAL     WITH     COSTS
THROUGHOUT.


      THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   3



                              JUDGMENT

Heard. This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging

the impugned final order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.14937/2021 (KLR-RES) whereby, the writ

petition preferred by the appellant/petitioner has been dismissed.

      2.     As   per    the   brief   facts   of   the   case,   the

appellant/petitioner    had    made     an     application   seeking

regularisation of land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.57 of Muthkur

Village, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in January 1999.

W.P.No.18717/2001 (KLR) was filed by the appellant/petitioner

which was disposed of vide order dated 27.04.2001 directing the

Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation of Land

to consider the application of the appellant/petitioner and to pass

appropriate orders. Accordingly, the land was granted to the

appellant/petitioner. On 01.07.2004, Saguvali chit came to be

issued to the appellant/petitioner in respect of the said land. It was

again, vide order dated 07.02.2005 in CCC (Civil) No.1423/2004,

the Division Bench of this Court passed an order that once the

Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation of Land

recommends for grant of land, the Tahsildar is bound to issue

Saguvali chit.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner that the issue was finally decided 18 years

back when the grant was made in favour of the

appellant/petitioner and saguvali chit was issued. The Tahsildar,

after 18 years of the impugned notice, called for reply from the

appellant/petitioner fixing the date 29.07.2021 for hearing and

adjudication. It is submitted that since the challenge to the grant

was hopelessly time barred, the respondents sought to unsettle

the things which were settled. The appellant/petitioner, therefore,

filed the writ petition questioning the veracity of the notice issued

by the Tahsildar.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner that the learned Single Judge, without

appreciating any of the contentions raised by the

appellant/petitioner and without affording an opportunity to him,

has passed the impugned order dismissing the writ petition on the

ground that the challenge to the notice is not justiciable in the writ

petition. In support of his submission, he has relied on the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Collector, Ranga

Reddy District and another vs D.Narsing Rao and others

([2015]3 SCC 695), particularly paragraph 12.3 which, on

reproduction, reads as under:

"12.3. In the decision in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale this Court while dealing with the power of revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 held as follows: (SCC pp. 356-57, paras 11-12)

"11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein.

12. Ordinarily, the reasonable period within which the power of revision may be exercised would be three years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to the exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years is not a reasonable time. Invocation of revisional power by the Sub- Divisional Officer under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse of process in the facts and circumstances of the case assuming that the order of the Tahsildar passed on 30-3-1976 is flawed and legally not correct."

5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner that this Court, in a similar circumstance,

relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

D.Narsing Rao (supra), has quashed the show cause notice and

allowed the writ petition. The reference is being made to the

judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 10.09.2020 passed in

W.P.No.8972/2020 in the case of G. Chitra Poornima and

Others vs State of Karnataka, Rep. by Under Secretary,

Revenue Department and Others. It is also submitted that in

another case, the learned Single Judge, in the similar

circumstances, has also quashed a show cause notice relying on

the judgment in the case of D.Narsing Rao (supra).

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing

for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on the other hand, submits that under

Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, no time

period is prescribed for cancellation of grant and any grant of land

made under this Chapter is liable to be cancelled and the land has

to be resumed by the Assistant Commissioner where the grant

has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representation or

is contrary to the Rules. It is submitted that the Tahsildar was well

within his rights to have issued the show cause notice to the

appellant/petitioner and fixed the date for adjudication. No

prejudice was caused to the appellant/petitioner.

7. We have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner as well as learned

Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1

to 3 and gone through the record.

8. The learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ

petition preferred by the appellant/petitioner, has taken note of the

fact that in case of an appeal preferred by the private

respondents, the Competent Authority has notified the

appellant/petitioner of such an appeal by issuing a notice, the

same is not justiciable in a writ petition before the Court. The

learned Single Judge has taken the view that it is open for the

appellant/petitioner to approach respondent No.2 -Assistant

Commissioner and satisfy about the genuinity of grant of land in

his favour. The appellant/petitioner cannot challenge the notice

before this Court on the mere ground that the notice is issued

after more than 25 years of grant.

9. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view

taken by the learned Single Judge. It was on an appeal preferred

by the private respondents that a notice was issued by the

Tahsildar to the appellant/petitioner. It was open for the

appellant/petitioner to have responded to the said notice by filing a

detailed reply and take whatever defence he wanted to be taken

in his support and convince the Competent Authority regarding

non-maintainability of the appeal. The appellant/petitioner could

have very well taken the support of the judgment which he wants

to rely before this Court in support of his contentions while

defending himself before the Appellate Authority. We are of the

considered view that no prejudice was caused to the

appellant/petitioner to have straight away approached this Court

instead of responding to the notice issued in the appeal before the

Tahsildar and as such, we do not find it a fit case to grant

indulgence.

10. The other contention of learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner is that in the case of D.Narsing Rao (supra),

the Apex Court has held, on the basis of a decision in the case of

Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram

Shevale ([2009] 9 SCC 352, that if the law does not provide for

any time-limit for adjudication of any case, then the Authority

should exercise the power within a reasonable time. There is no

dispute to the aforesaid proposition. However, these all issues

are to be considered by the Competent Authority while deciding

the appeal and it cannot be said that the notice impugned before

the writ Court was issued in an arbitrary manner or without

jurisdiction. The appeal as such lacks merit. It is accordingly

dismissed.

11. The pending interlocutory application does not

survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd-

JUDGE

bkv