Karnataka High Court
Smt. S. Nagalakshmi vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 January, 2022
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.56799 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT. S. NAGALAKSHMI
D/O M NARASIMHALU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT TANK BUND ROAD
CHINTAMANI TOWN-561207
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
SHIDLAGATTA ROAD
CHICKBALLAPUR-561 207
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
CHICKBALLAPUR-561 207
3. THE TAHSILDAR
CHINTAMANI TALUK
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
CHINTAMANI-561206
-2-
4. MARIYAMMA
W/O VENKATASHAMAPPA
KURATA HALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHINTAMANI (T)-563125
5. KRISHNAPPA
S/O DODDARAMAPPA
KURATA HALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHINTAMANI (T)-563125
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 & R5 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE R-1 DTD10.02.2014 IN R.A.NO.53/2010-11 AT
ANNEXURE-J AND THE PROCEEDIGNS BEFORE 3RD
RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-K.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 10.02.2014 passed by the 1st respondent-Deputy
Commissioner in R.A.No.53/2010-11 and subsequent action
on the part of the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar in initiating
proceedings in RRTPS(A)/01/2014-15 consequent to the
directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner is also
called in question in this writ petition.
2. It is evident from the materials available on record
that the name of the petitioner came to be entered in the
revenue records consequent to a registered sale deed dated
22.06.1996 by Sri.K.P.Krishnappa S/o Doddaramappa in
favour of the petitioner, in respect of Sy.No.25/P-29,
measuring 1 acre 37 guntas. It is stated in the recitals of
the sale deed that the land was granted in favour of
Sri.K.P.Krishnappa during the year 1961-62. However,
since the name of the petitioner was not entered in the
revenue records inspite of a registered instrument in her
favour, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble
Lokayukta with a complaint. Thereafter, on the directions
said to have been issued by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, the
name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records
in RRTC No.49/2002-03 dated 07.05.2002.
3. It was at that juncture that the 4th respondent
approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal
under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964, complaining that she had filed an application in Form
No.53 in respect of 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.25 of
Gopasandra village, Chintamani Taluk, since she was in
unauthorized occupation. The Deputy Commissioner
allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and directed him to hold an enquiry
to find out whether the very Sri.K.P.Krishnappa was indeed
granted 1 acre 37 guntas of land in Sy.No.25 of
Gopasandra village, Chintamani Taluk. Thereafter, the
Tahsildar passed an order dated 06.03.2006, giving a
finding that as found in record CDR No.41/1961-62 the said
land were granted in favour of Sri.K.P.Krishnappa s/o
Doddaramappa. However, due to a fire accident some of
those records were destroyed, but other co-relating
documents were available to substantiate that the grant
was made in favour of Sri.K.P.Krishnappa.
4. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the next
incumbent Tahsildar, without notice to the petitioner,
recalled the earlier order dated 06.03.2006 and directed the
entry of the name of the 'Government'. Aggrieved, the
petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner to set
aside the subsequent order dated 28.05.2009 passed by
the Tahsildar. It appears that the Assistant Commissioner
had passed an order dated 01.06.2009 setting aside the
order on 28.05.2009 passed by the Tahsildar. However, the
said order was once again recalled by the Assistant
Commissioner by order dated 21.05.2010. At this juncture,
learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not
known as to how the Assistant Commissioner could recall
the earlier order dated 01.06.2009 and under which
provision of law the Assistant Commissioner was
empowered to recall or review his own order. The
petitioner further approached the Deputy Commissioner and
the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 10.02.2014
remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar to enquire once
again as to genuinity in the claim of the petitioner that the
land in question was earlier granted in favour of
Sri.K.P.Krishnappa. Consequently, the Tahsildar has
initiated the proceedings in RRTPS(A)/01/2014-15. The
petitioner has called in question the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and further
proceedings initiated at the hands of the Tahsildar.
5. Although notice is served on respondents No.4 and
5, they have remained unrepresented.
6. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider
similar situation where either at the instance of the third
party or suo-motu proceedings initiated at the hands of the
revenue authorities, a revenue entry made decades ago
was sought to be interfered with by invoking the powers
vested in the Appellate Authority i.e., Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner under Section
136(2) and 136(3) of the Act. This Court while noticing a
catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that even if there is no limitation prescribed for taking
action, such powers could be exercised only within
reasonable period. The following paragraphs are extracted
from Writ Petition No.22426 of 2021 (KLR-RES), dated
12.01.2022, in the case of Smt. Pyari Ma and others Vs.
The State of Karnataka and others for immediate
reference;
"11. In MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN
/VS./ FATMABAI IBRAHIM - (1997) 6 SCC
71, it was held that suo-motu powers have to be
exercised within a reasonable time. In JOINT
COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT /VS./
D.NARSING RAO AND OTHERS-(2015) 3 SCC
695, it was held in paragraph 25 as follows:
"The legal position is fairly well settled by a long
line of decisions of this Court which have laid
down that even when there is no period of
limitation prescribed for the exercise of any
power, revisional or otherwise, such power must
be exercised within a reasonable period. This is
so even in cases where allegations of fraud have
necessitated the exercise of any corrective
power. We may briefly refer to some of the
decisions only to bring home the point that the
absence of a stipulated period of limitation makes
little or no difference insofar as the exercise of
the power is concerned which ought to be
permissible only when the power is invoked
within a reasonable period.
Even in respect of the revisional jurisdiction, it
was held that delayed exercise of revisional
jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or
transactions were to remain forever open to
challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless
uncertainly in human affairs, which is not the
policy of law. Because, even when there is no
period of limitation prescribed for exercise of
such powers, the intervening delay, may have led
to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be
trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary
power especially when no cogent explanation for
the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must
run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases
where the orders sought to be revised are
fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within
a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud.
Simply describing an act or transaction to be
fraudulent will not extend the time for its
correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise
of revisional power would itself be tantamount to
a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in
an authority."
7. In the present case also this Court finds that
consequent to a registered instrument, the petitioner went
before the revenue authorities seeking mutation of her
name in the revenue records. Since her name was not
entered in the revenue records, the petitioner had
approached the Hon'ble Lokayukta. Thereafter, as per the
directions of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, the name of the
petitioner was entered in the land revenue records. The
genuinty of the grant said to have made in favour of the
petitioner's vendor Sri.K.P.Krishnappa has been gone into
several times by several authorities. At least on two
occasions, it has been found by the Tahsildar that as per
CDR No.41/1961-62 the land in question is found to have
been granted in favour of Sri.K.P.Krishnappa. It was only
on 02.09.1980 that there was a fire accident in the office of
Tahsildar and some of the original records were destroyed.
However, the Tahsildar in his order dated 06.03.2006 has
furnished all relevant information stating that there were
other co-relating documents to substantiate the fact that
there was a grant made in favour of Sri.K.P.Krishnappa.
8. Moreover, as could be seen from the materials
available on record that at least on two occasions, one at
the instance of the Tahsildar, without there being any
power of review that could be exercised by the authority,
the earlier order dated 06.03.2006 was recalled by the
Tahsildar without notice to the petitioner and on
28.05.2009, the name of the petitioner was removed from
the land revenue records. Similarly, the Assistant
Commissioner also has recalled his earlier order dated
01.06.2009 and passed a subsequent order dated
21.05.2010. On both occasions, the action on the part of
the authority is without any authority of law. There being
no power of review or recall and no such power being
pointed out in the impugned orders, both those orders are
required to be held as arbitrary and capricious and deserve
to be quashed and set aside.
9. The 4th respondent contends that she has filed an
application in Form No.53 seeking regularization of her
unauthorized occupation of 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.25.
This application is said to have been made by the 4th
respondent on 13.01.1999. The question of consideration of
the application at the hands of the 4th respondent would
arise only if the land is available for re-grant or
regularization. It is also clear from the provisions of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 that the regularization
is permissible only in respect of government land and not in
respect of lands held by private individuals. By virtue of a
registered instrument executed by the original grantee in
favour of the petitioner and the land revenue records being
mutated in the name of the petitioner, it is clear that even
if an application in Form No.53 filed at the hands of the 4th
respondent, the same cannot be entertained since, the land
is no more government land. On the contrary, this land
belonging to the petitioner herein.
10. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned orders dated
10.02.2014 passed in RA No.53/2010-11 at Annexure-J and
further proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar in RRTPS(A)/
01/2014-15 at Annexure-K also deserve to be quashed and
set aside.
11. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 10.02.2014
passed by the Deputy Commissioner in
R.A.No.53/2010-11 at Annexure-J, is
hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) All further proceedings in RRTPS(A)/
01/2014-15 at Annexure-K before the 3rd
respondent-Tahsildar is also quashed and
set aside.
(iv) The name of the petitioner shall continue
in the land revenue records in respect of
Sy.No.25/P-29, measuring 1 acre 37
guntas, situated at Gopasandra Village,
Chintamani Taluk, unless and until any
order is passed by a competent civil
court declaring that the petitioner is not
the lawful owner of the lands.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
