The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Govindaraju
2022 Latest Caselaw 733 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                          AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

             W.A.No.1093/2021 (KLR - RES)


BETWEEN :

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

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       KANDAYA BHAVAN
       BENGALURU-560001

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
       (SUB DIVISION), KANDAYA BHAVAN
       BENGALURU-560001

4.     THE TAHASILDAR
       BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADDL)
       YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
       BENGALURU-560064

5.     THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
       BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADDL)
       YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
       BENGALURU-560064
                                    -2-



6.      REVENUE INSPECTOR
        BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
        YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560097

7.      THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
        K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001

8.      THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
        LAND RECORDS, K.R.CIRCLE,
        BANGALORE-560001

9.      THE SURVEYOR OF LAND RECORDS
        BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
        YELAHANKA, BANGALORE                         ...APPELLANTS

                (BY SRI SHASHIKUMAR G.V., AGA.)


AND :

SRI GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O NO.101,
DIVYASHREE RESIDENCY
R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560032                                    ...RESPONDENT

      (BY SRI HANUMANTHAPPA B. HARAVI GOWDAR, ADV.)

        THIS   W.A.   IS   FILED    UNDER    SECTION   4   OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN W.P.NO.21521/2016 ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2020, PASSED BY
THE     LEARNED       SINGLE   JUDGE        IN   W.P.NO.21521/2020
(KLR-RES).

        THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-



                   JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal is filed by the State of

Karnataka challenging the order dated 21.09.2020

passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.21521/2016 whereby the writ petition filed by

the respondent herein has been allowed setting aside

the impugned endorsement dated 30.03.2016 issued by

the appellant No.4 vide Annexure - U.

2. The respondent claiming to be the absolute

owner of land bearing Sy.No.111 of Singanayakana

village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk

measuring 5 acres having purchased the same from Sri.

A. Venkatesh under the registered sale deed 08.03.1996

has approached the writ Court challenging the

endorsement dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure - U) issued

by the appellant No.4, whereby the request of the

respondent herein for conducting phodi and durasth

work relating to the property in question was rejected

on the ground that the records pertaining to the original

grant is not available in the office and further directed

to take action for cancelling the grant. The said

endorsement having been quashed allowing the petition,

State has preferred this writ appeal.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the appellants

submitted that the land bearing Sy.No.111, totally

measuring 76 acres including the property in question

situated at Singanayakanahalli Village, Yelahanka

Hobli, Bangalore, is the Government gomal land. The

Special Deputy Commissioner having initiated suo-moto

proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, 1964 has arrived at a decision that

the respondent had claimed title over the property in

question on the basis of created and fabricated

documents. Hence, vide order dated 05.12.2009, the

land in question was forfeited to the Government

cancelling the entry effected in the revenue records in

favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the request of

the respondent to conduct phodi and durasth work was

rejected. The learned Single Judge without appreciating

these aspects has set aside the endorsement impugned

directing the appellant No.4 to conduct phodi and

durasth work in respect of the land in question in

accordance with law. Learned Single Judge has further

directed appellant Nos.3 and 4 to continue the name of

the respondent in revenue records in respect of the land

in question. These directions issued by the learned

Single Judge are not in conformity with the provisions

of Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes

(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978,

(PTCL Act) as the Special Deputy Commissioner has

discovered that the documents produced by the

respondent are created and concocted documents.

4. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent

supported the order of the learned Single Judge and

submitted that the appellants are harassing the

respondent despite the judgment and decree passed by

the competent Civil Court in favour of the respondent in

O.S.No.213/1997 confirmed in R.A.No.42/2011. The

appellants had failed to comply with the directions

issued by the writ Court in W.P.No.5538/2010 and

allied matters (D.D. 19.08.2010) and

W.P.No.27014/2013 (D.D. 06.06.2014) for conducting

phodi and durasth work in respect of the lands in

question. In contempt proceedings initiated by the

respondent for disobedience of the said order, the

endorsement impugned has been issued to escape from

the clutches of the contempt proceedings. The

appellants having suffered orders as aforesaid, instead

of complying with the directions issued by this Court,

proceeded to cancel the name of the respondent in the

revenue records denying the request of the respondent

for conducting phodi and durasth work. Having

considered these aspects judiciously, learned Single

Judge has rightly allowed the petition and the same

deserves to be confirmed by this Court.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for the parties and perusing the material on record, this

Court is of the considered view that the writ appeal

deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons.

6. Firstly, the judgment and decree passed in

favour of the respondent in O.S.No.213/1997 confirmed

in R.A.No.42/2011 relating to the property in question

has reached finality. Secondly, W.P.No.5538/2010 and

allied matters were filed by the respondent challenging

the order dated 05.12.2009 passed by the Special

Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, wherein an

order of cancelling the entries in the revenue records

and mutation register standing in the name of the

respondent was made. Allowing the said writ petitions,

the writ Court has set aside the order dated 05.12.2009

directing the Special Deputy Commissioner to restore

the name of the respondent in the revenue records.

7. Thirdly, W.P.No.27014/2013 was filed by the

respondent seeking for a direction to the appellant No.4

to conduct phodi and durasth work in respect of the

lands in question. The said writ petition was disposed

of, directing the appellant No.4 to consider the

representation in accordance with law for the purpose of

phodi and durasth work within a period of five months.

But the same having not complied, the respondent was

constrained to file CCC No.1436/2015. During the

pendency of the contempt proceedings, the appellant

No.4 - Tahasildar has filed his affidavit enclosing a

report submitted by him to the Deputy Commissioner

recommending for phodi work to be done in the name of

the respondent. Having considered the same, the

contempt proceedings came to be dropped reserving

liberty to the respondent to approach this Court in the

event of Deputy Commissioner not complying with the

order.

8. The aforesaid orders would indicate that the

appellants were required to conduct phodi and durasth

work of the lands in question, but very strangely the

appellants have rejected the same. These aspects being

rightly considered by the learned Single Judge, writ

petition has been allowed expressing displeasure on the

conduct of the appellants specifically observing that it is

expected that the appellants shall not repeat the

illegality and pass an unwarranted order. To our shock

and dismay, the appellants have challenged the said

order of the learned Single Judge without any valid

grounds. The contentions raised by the appellants do

not merit any consideration in the background of the

facts narrated above. We do not find any jurisdictional

error in the order impugned.

- 10 -

Writ appeal being devoid of merits, stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR