Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Hanumanarasaiah on 9 June, 2021
Author: Chief Justice Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT APPEAL NO.3488 OF 2015 (KLR-RR-SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
(LAND GRANTS),
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
6TH FLOOR,
MAHAVEER COMPLEX
K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE -560 009.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)
AND:
-2-
SRI HANUMANARASAIAH
S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
R/O LAKSHMIPURA
DASANAPURA HOBLI - 562 123
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE &
SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE ON I.A. 1/2017)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 13/02/2013 PASSED IN THE WRIT
PETITION NO. 24624/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND ORDER DATED
30/10/2014 MADE IN REVIEW PETITION NO.319/2014 AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the appellant. The challenge in this
appeal is to the judgment and order dated 13th
February, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in
a writ petition filed by the respondent herein. The
operative part of the judgment and order which is
impugned reads thus:
"In view of the facts and
circumstances and submissions made by
the counsels and further in the light of the
report made by the Thasildar in
No.LND.CR-301/2009-10 dated
05.10.2010 it is seen that the petitioner
has been granted the said land in the year
1967. If any action is to be initiated, it is
only as per law by following due
procedure. Till then the Thasildar is
directed to issue computerized RTC, which
is to be complied within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order."
(underline supplied)
2. The submission of the learned Additional
Government Advocate is that when a decision was
taken by the Government to convert all the manually
maintained Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops
(RTCs) into computerized form, the name of the
respondent was not shown on the RTC and the name of
the State Government was appearing. The submission
of the learned Additional Government Advocate is that
a copy of the alleged Saguvali Chit produced by the
respondent in the writ petition is a forged document.
His submission is that the case of the respondent
herein is based on fraud.
3. We have considered the submissions. There were
two substantive prayers made in the writ petition
which read thus:
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash
the letter dated 19.03.2012 addressed by
the Enforcement Cell of Special Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore District,
Bangalore in No.VG/BN/CR/05/11-12
produced at Annexure-R;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents 1 to 4 to record Computerized
RTC in the name of the petitioner with
respect to land in question after the years
1997-98."
From a perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it
is apparent that both the prayers were not granted by
the learned Single Judge. There was no order issued
by the learned Single Judge directing the appellants
herein to record computerized RTC in the name of the
respondent herein (writ petitioner). In fact, the
learned Single Judge permitted action to be initiated
after following due procedure. The only direction
issued by the learned Single Judge is to issue a
computerized RTC.
4. On a query made by the Court, the learned
Additional Government Advocate states that all
manually maintained RTCs were converted into
computerized RTCs in the year 2001. Thus, it follows
that the existing manually maintained RTCs were to be
simply converted into computerized RTCs without
making any changes therein. Therefore, we fail to
understand how the State Government can be
aggrieved by the direction issued in the impugned
judgment and order. The impugned judgment and
order permits an enquiry to be made and action to be
taken against the respondent in accordance with law.
All that the State Government had to do was to
convert the manual RTC of the subject property as
appearing on the date of the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge into computerized form.
5. Apart from this, it is well settled that the entries
in RTC are made only for fiscal purposes and the
entries neither confer title nor take away title.
6. Hence, there is no scope to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order. Before parting with
the impugned order, we must record our strong
reservation to the manner in which first ground of
appeal on page 10 has been drafted. The person who
drafted the appeal ought to have known that the
appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single
Judge of this Court. We hope and trust that such
grounds are not taken by the State Government while
preferring writ appeals. Restraint ought to be shown
by the State. The learned Additional Government
Advocate will provide a copy of this order along with a
copy of the memorandum of appeal to the learned
Advocate General.
7. Subject to what we have held in this judgment
and order, no interference is called for with the
impugned order. We make it clear that we have made
no adjudication on any dispute concerning title so far
as the appellant, the respondent and third party
applicants are concerned and the said issue is left open
to be decided by the competent Court.
8. Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is
dismissed. Pending applications do not survive and are
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
vgh*
