Sri. K. B. Shashidhara vs The Tahasildar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2416 Kant

                           1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

          THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

         WRIT PETITION NO.14500/2016 (KLR-LG)

BETWEEN

SRI. K. B. SHASHIDHARA
SON OF LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KAMANEKERE VILLAGE AND POST,
HERENALLUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT                ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     THE TAHASILDAR
       KADUR TALUK,
       CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT

2.     ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION,
       TARIKERE.

3.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT,
       CHIKMAGALUR.

4.     THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
       CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT,
       CHIKMAGALUR                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
                                 2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN APPEAL NO.234/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD4.3.2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPEALLATE
TRIBUNAL   BANGALORE     IN   APPEAL   NO.234/2015
(PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-A SO ALSO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD16.7.1981     PASSED    BY    THE    DIVISIONAL
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION (PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-B) EFFECTING CANCELLATION OF THE GRANT
MADE BY THE R-4 IN THE ABOVE CASE AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner who purchased the lands in

question i.e., 5 acres of land in Sy.No.142 of

Kamanekere Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur, under

a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1992, is before

this Court calling in question the order passed by the

Divisional Commissioner, Mysuru Division, in

proceedings bearing No.LND.II.137/80-81 dated

16.07.1981.

2. The proceedings were said to have been

initiated by the Divisional Commissioner, Mysuru, for

cancellation of grant made in favour of Sri

H.V.Ramaswamy S/o Venkatagiriyappa. As per the

said order, 5 acres of land were said to have been

granted in favour of Sri H.V.Ramaswamy, by order

dated 22.12.1962 and saguvali chit was issued on

31.01.1963. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner,

Chikamagalur, reports to the Divisional Commissioner

that Sri H.V.Ramaswamy, has not cultivated the land

and the same is lying vacant as H.V.Ramaswamy has

left the Village and is reported to be living in

Bangalore. A showcause notice is said to have been

issued on 29.01.1981 and one Sri L.Krishnappa

appeared before the authority claiming to be the

power of attorney holder of Sri H.V.Ramaswamy. The

said L.Krishnappa stated before the authorities that on

the strength of the Power of Attorney given by

H.V.Ramaswamy, he has cultivated the land and is in

occupation of the land.

3. A local inspection was directed to be held and

on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner,

the Divisional Commissioner proceeded to pass the

impugned order cancelling the grant made in favour of

H.V.Ramaswamy and directed resumption of the land

to the Government free from all encumbrances.

4. Learned Counsel Sri Kalyan Basavaraj,

appearing for the petitioner submits that no further

action seems to have taken consequent to the orders

passed by the Divisional Commissioner. No entry was

made in the revenue records regarding the order of

cancellation, possession was not taken and the lands

were not resumed in favour of the Government, in a

manner known to law. Moreover, one Sri Kashappa,

the vendor-in-title of the petitioner had filed

O.S.No.37/1988 against H.V.Ramaswamy and Sri

L.Krishnappa, seeking a judgment and decree to

declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land

by law of adverse possession; for permanent

injunction restraining the defendants or anybody on

their behalf from trespassing, obstructing and

interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said suit

was decreed as per the compromise petition filed

under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. Thereafter, the

petitioner herein purchased the land in question from

Kashappa under a sale deed dated 12.11.1992.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser. He has

been in possession of the land in question from the

year 1992 and he has put the land in use and

cultivation. He further submits that this writ petition

was required to be filed by the petitioner only after

the respondent-authorities wanted to initiate action in

terms of the order passed by the Divisional

Commissioner way back in the year 1981. After

coming to know about the order passed by the

Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner preferred an

appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in

Appeal No.234/2015. The Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal by order dated 04.03.2016 dismissed the

appeal upholding the order passed by the Divisional

Commissioner, Mysore.

6. Per contra, the learned AGA submits that Sri

H.V.Ramaswamy has entered appearance before the

Divisional Commissioner through a power of attorney

holder. It is also stated that Sri H.V.Ramaswamy

himself had written an application to the Divisional

Commissioner and therefore, the proceedings before

the Divisional Commissioner was to the knowledge of

H.V.Ramaswamy. The said H.V.Ramaswamy has

never questioned the orders passed by the Divisional

Commissioner. On the other hand, Sri

H.V.Ramaswamy goes before the Civil Court and files

a compromise petition releasing his rights in respect

of the land in question in favour of Sri Kashappa. The

learned AGA submits that Sri H.V.Ramaswamy had no

rights to concede before the Civil Court or give up his

rights, since his rights were already taken away by an

order passed by the Divisional Commissioner way

back in the year 1981. Moreover, the State

Government or the revenue authorities are not parties

to the said suit.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, learned AGA and on perusing the petition

papers, this Court finds that no fault could be found

with the petitioner who has come before this Court

having purchased the property in question, bonafide,

without any knowledge of the orders passed by the

Divisional Commissioner. As rightly submitted by the

learned Counsel for the petitioner, if any entry was

made in the land revenue records consequent to the

orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, it

would have been to the knowledge of the petitioner.

No such entry was found in the land revenue records

regarding the orders passed by the Divisional

Commissioner or regarding resumption of the land in

favour of the Government. As on the date when the

petitioner purchased the land in the year 1992, no

such entry was found in the land revenue records,

which could be held against the petitioner.

8. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner

has submitted that there was an inordinate delay on

the part of the revenue authorities in initiating the

proceedings for cancellation of the grant, this Court is

of the considered opinion that on the merits of the

matter regarding the orders passed by the Divisional

Commissioner, the petitioner may not have any say.

It is no doubt true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN

/VS./ FATMABAI IBRAHIM - (1997) 6 SCC 71,

and in the case of JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT /VS./ D.NARSING RAO AND

OTHERS - (2015) 3 SCC 695, has held that any

action, be it a case where there is no limitation

prescribed or exercise of suo motu powers, the same

is required to be taken within a reasonable time. But

these questions need not be gone into in the present

matter, because on the face of it, it is clear that

consequent to the orders passed by the Divisional

Commissioner, no action is taken by the revenue

authorities to execute the order of the Divisional

Commissioner. No entry is made in the revenue

records regarding cancellation of the grant or the

resumption of the lands to the State Government.

For a person like the petitioner, who has purchased

the property after paying market value, an order

passed way back in the year 1981 cannot be brought

forward to take away the legitimate rights of the

petitioner. At any rate, since no further action was

taken consequent to the orders passed by the

Divisional Commissioner and no fault could be found

with the petitioner for having purchased the property

who had no knowledge of the impugned order passed

by the Divisional Commissioner way back in the year

1981, the respondent-revenue authorities shall not be

permitted to take any action consequent to the

impugned orders passed by the Divisional

Commissioner. It can only be held that the impugned

order has spent itself and no further action can be

taken at this point of time against the petitioner who

is a bonafide purchaser.

9. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

1. The writ petition is allowed.

2. The impugned order dated 16.07.1981 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division, is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. The subsequent order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 04.03.2016 in Appeal No.234/2015 is also quashed and set aside.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE JT/-