The Government Of Karnataka And ... vs Ramappa And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6838 Kant

                              1



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
                            AND
 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

         WRIT APPEAL No.200154/2021 (KLR-LG)

BETWEEN:

1.     The Government of Karnataka
       By its Secretary
       Revenue Department
       M.S. Building
       Bengaluru-560 001

2.     The Deputy Commissioner
       Vijayapura
       Dist. Vijayapura

3.     The Assistant Commissioner
       Vijayapura Sub-Division
       Vijayapura

4.     The Tahasildar
       Vijayapura, Dist. Vijayapura

                                      ... Appellants
(By Sri Shivakumar Tengli, AGA )
                              2



AND:

1.     Sri Ramappa S/o Yamanappa Madar
       Aged about 64 Years
       Occ: Agriculture
       R/o Buthanal
       Tq. & Dist. Vijayapura-586 101

2.     Sri Gurappa S/o Siddappa Holer
       Aged about 73 years
       Occ: Agriculture
       R/o Buthanal
       Tq. & Dist. Vijayapura-586 101

3.     Smt. Chandrawwa D/o Husanappa Madar
       Since deceased by her legal
       Representative: Hanmawwa
       D/o Mallappa Madar
       Aged about 33 Years
       Occ: Agriculture & Household
       R/o Buthanal
       Tq. & Dist. Vijayapura-586 101

4.     Sri Bandappa S/o Basappa Madar
       Aged about 66 years
       Occ: Agriculture
       R/o Buthanal
       Tq. & Dist. Vijayapura-586 101

5.     Sri Ayyappa S/o Basappa Madar
       Aged about 66 Years
       Occ: Agriculture
       R/o Buthanal
       Tq. & Dist. Vijayapura-586 101

6.     Smt. Shantabai Ramanna Harijan
       Aged about 69 years
       Occ: Agriculture
       R/o Buthanal
       Tq. & Dist. Vijayapura-586 101
                               3



7.    Smt. Marewwa D/o Basappa
      Since deceased by her legal representative
      Basappa S/o Marewwa Madar
      Aged about 32 Years
      Occ: Agriculture & Household
      R/o Buthanal
      Tq. & Dist. Vijayapura-586 101

8.    Parvati D/o Gurappa Holer
      Aged about 63 Years
      Occ: Agriculture & Household
      R/o Buthanal
      Tq. & Dist. Vijayapura-586 101
                                              ... Respondents

(By Sri G.G. Chagashetti, Advocate)

       This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High
Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order of the learned
Single     Judge     dated      03.09.2020      passed      in
W.P.No.203884/2018 and grant such other or further relief
as this Court deems fit.

     This appeal coming on for           Orders,   this     day,
R. Devdas J., delivered the following:

                        JUDGMENT

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

This writ appeal is filed at the hands of the State,

the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura, the Assistant

Commissioner and Tahasildar, Vijayapura taluk,

seeking to assail order dated 03.09.2020 passed in

W.P.No.203884/2018.

2. Although this appeal is filed on 23.09.2021,

in view of the general directions given by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application

No.665/2021 in S.M.W. (C) No.3/2020, and since the

order of the learned Single Judge was passed during the

Covid-19 period, there is no delay.

3. The respondents had filed

W.P.No.20388/2014 seeking a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the Tahasildar, Vijayapura to enter

the names of the petitioners in the record of rights by

way of mutation entry in respect of 3 acres 20 guntas

each in land bearing Sy.No.170 of Buthanal village.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed that an

order of grant dated 30.06.1981 was passed by the then

Tahasildar granting 3 acres 20 guntas of land each in

favour of the respondents herein. Though the Revenue

Inspector had not indicated about the physical

possession of the land, yet the Tahasildar assumed that

the report of the Revenue Inspector disclosed that the

petitioners were not in possession of the suit properties.

The learned Single Judge found that the Tahasildar

went overboard by claiming that there were no records

relating to the grant of land in favour of the respondents

herein. It was noticed that this finding of the Tahasildar

was totally against the report submitted by the Revenue

Inspector which indicated that the respondents were

granted land in terms of the order dated 30.06.1981.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold

that after 39 years, the Tahasildar could not have re-

visited the question of grant or to hold that there were

no orders reducing the Gomal area so as to grant the

land in favour of the respondents herein. Consequently,

the learned Single Judge directed the entries of the

names of the respondents herein in the revenue records,

to be done within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

5. When the appellants herein did not comply

with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge,

the respondents herein filed a contempt petition in CCC

No.200112/2021. During the course of the proceedings,

we had directed the Tahasildar, Vijayapura who was

present in the Court to conduct an enquiry and find out

whether the claim made by the respondents herein that

they were in occupation of the lands in question prior to

the grant order and have continued to be in possession

of the lands for the past 35 years and that they have

cultivated the lands is true or otherwise, while recording

the statements of the neighbours.

6. We have to notice here that earlier in

W.P.No.203473/2017 and connected matters which

were disposed of by order dated 18.09.2017 directing

the respondent - Tahasildar to consider the

representations dated 08.06.2015 and 23.04.2016 and

hear the respondents on 12.10.2017 and thereafter

pass orders expeditiously, it appears that instead of

looking into the records to find out whether there were

indeed grant orders, however, the concerned Tahsildar

seemed to have directed the Revenue Inspector to find

out whether the respondents were in possession of the

lands in question. On the report of the Revenue

Inspector that the respondents were not in possession

of the property and that no Saguvali Chit was issued

consequent to the grant order and in the revenue

records the extent of lands standing in the name of the

Government was not reduced, the Tahsildar had

proceeded to issue an endorsement dated 17.02.2018

rejecting the claim of the respondents herein.

7. Consequent to our directions, the respondent -

Tahsildar has submitted a report dated 02.12.2021

stating that he visited the spot on 16.11.2021 and

recorded the statements of the respondents and the

neighbours, as panchas. But what we find is that

individual statements are not recorded and an omnibus

statement that about 25 years ago some of the

respondents had tilled the lands in question but later

on they had done nothing on the lands, was recorded.

The Tahsildar had also recorded the statement that

during the year 2013-14 the authorities had tried to

evict the respondents from the land in question.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the

attention of this Court to the documents submitted

along with I.A.No.3/2021, which was filed at the hands

of the respondents for production of additional

documents. We find notices dated 13.05.2014 issued

by the Tahsildar to all the respondents herein stating

that they were in unauthorized occupation of 3 acres 20

guntas each in Sy.No.170 of Buthanal village and

therefore their occupation will be treated as

unauthorized occupation and criminal action will be

taken against the respondents if they do not evict

themselves from the said lands. Again similar notices

dated 15.04.2015 have been issued by the Tahsildar in

respect of all the respondents herein reiterating the

earlier notice of eviction.

9. Although learned Additional Advocate General

appeared on behalf of the appellants - State and made

submissions that there are no co-relating documents

consequent to the order of grant evidencing the fact of

grant and identification of the boundaries; placing the

respondents in possession of the granted lands; fixation

of the land revenue or collection of land revenue from

the respondents which is found in cases of the lands

granted in the neighbouring villages, we are unable to

accede to the submissions made by the learned

Additional Advocate General. We are one with the

findings of the learned Single Judge. The contention of

the appellants that there are no records found in the

office of the Tahsildar regarding the grant made in

favour of the respondents or any other co-relating

documents supporting such grant, needs to be rejected

since notices dated 13.05.2014 and 15.04.2015 issued

by the Tahsildar calling upon the respondents herein to

evict from the lands in question, is sufficient proof to

show that the respondents were in fact in possession of

the lands in question. It is not disputed by the

appellants that the respondents herein belong to the

downtrodden community and they had sought for grant

of lands since they were already in unauthozied

occupation prior to their application for grant of lands

or regularization of unauthorized occupation. When it

is an admitted fact that lands in Buthanal village and

the neighbouring villages have been granted in favour of

the deserving persons to put the lands in better use and

for cultivation and that proper documentation has been

made in respect of the granted lands in the

neighbouring villages, similar proceedings should also

have been made in favour of the respondents.

Nevertheless, if the proceedings were not drawn and the

mutations were not accordingly made, it is for the

authorities to answer as to why the further proceedings

were not carried out in the revenue records. At any rate,

when it is clear that notices were issued by the fourth

appellant - Tahasildar calling upon the respondents to

evict from the lands in question way back in the year

2014 and 2015, the appellants are now prevented from

raising a contention that the respondents were never in

possession of the lands in question. At any rate, the

respondents also deserved grant of lands along with the

similarly situated persons who were granted lands in

the neighbouring villages.

10. Having regard to all these aspects and factual

verification made by this Court, we do not find any

infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single

Judge directing mutation entries to be made in the

revenue records in favour of the respondents herein. At

the cost of repetition, we once again hold that the

material available on record is sufficient to come to a

conclusion that lands measuring 3 acres 20 guntas

each in Sy.No.170 of Buthanal village were granted by

the competent authority during the year 1981 to the

respondents. Therefore, the appellants - authorities are

required to carry out the directions issued by the

learned Single Judge within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending

interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BL/swk