Karnataka High Court

N.Basavaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2022

Bench: Acting Chief Justice, J.M.Khazi

                             1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                       PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

        THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

           W.A. NO.563 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
                           IN
           W.P.No.16707 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:

1. N. BASAVARAJ
   AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
   S/O G. NANJAPPA
   NO.164/1, SHAMANNA LAYOUT
   VINAYAKA NAGARA
   HAGADURU, WHITEFIELD
   BENGALURU-560066.

2. S.N. RAJA
   S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH
   AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
   R/A SAMETHANAHALLI
   ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
   HOSAKOTE TALUK
   BENGALURU RURAL-560067.

3. VINOD KUMAR
   S/O N. BASAVARAJ
   AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
   NO.164/1, SHAMANNA LAYOUT
   VINAYAKA NAGARA
   HAGADURU, WHITEFIEDL
   BENGALURU-562114.

                                       ... APPELLANTS
                                 2




(BY MR. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV.,)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS CHIEF SECREATARY
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU-560001.

2.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU-560001.

3.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU DISTRICT
     K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

4.   SMT. RINKU DESHPANDE
     W/O NILESH DESHPANDE
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     R/A FLAT NO.123, TOWER-4
     PEBBAL BAY APARTMENT
     R M V 2ND STAGE
     DOLLARS COLONY
     BENGALURU-560094.

                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. A.S. PONANNA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    MR. RAKESH BHATT, ADV., FOR C/R4
    MR. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1, R2, & R3)
                             ---

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED

BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.16707/2021 DATED

08.06.2021 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                               3




     THIS   W.A.   COMING    ON   FOR   ORDERS,   THIS   DAY,

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                            JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal is arises out of an order

dated 08.06.2022 by which writ petition preferred by

respondent No.4 has been allowed. The order passed

by the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.08.2021 is

quashed and it is directed that revenue entries shall

stand restored in the name of respondent No.4. In

order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants,

few facts need mention which are stated infra.

2. One Smt. Krishnamma applied for grant of

4 acres of land of Survey No.115, whereas, Sri. M.

Kempanna applied for grant in respect of 4 acres of

land of same survey number of land situated in

Channasandra Village. The Assistant Commissioner

sent a report dated 09.10.1961 to the Deputy

Commissioner recommending for grant of land in

favour of the aforesaid persons. The Deputy

Commissioner by an order dated 10.07.1964 directed

to appropriate 8 acres of land of Survey No.115 of

Channasandra Village for agricultural purposes, so as

to grant the same. The Assistant Commissioner by an

order dated 15.09.1964 granted 4 acres of land each

to Smt. Krishnamma and Sri. Kempanna (hereinafter

referred to as 'grantees' for short) in block Nos.1 and

2. The Grant Certificates were issued on 16.01.1965

in favour of aforesaid persons.

3. Thereafter, on 10.06.1966 mutation was

effected in the name of the grantees. The grantees

filed a writ petition namely W.P. No.9145/2007 and

sought for entering their names in RTC, which was

disposed of by an order dated 05.01.2009 to consider

the grantees case. The Special Deputy Commissioner

by an order dated 18.11.2010 passed an order by

which grant made in favour of the grantees was

confirmed and the Tahsildar was directed to enter the

names of the grantees in the revenue records. The

State Government challenged the order of the Special

Deputy Commissioner in W.P. No.28756/2011 which

was dismissed on 04.11.2011. The State Government

also filed an appeal against the order passed by the

learned Single Judge namely W.A. No.2206/2013,

which was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.10.2013.

4. The respondent No.4 thereafter purchased

lands measuring 4 acres vide Sale Deed dated

09.10.2015 from the original grantee Smt.

Krishnamma, whereas remaining land measuring 4

acres was purchased vide registered Sale Deed dated

13.10.2015 from Sri. Krishnappa and others. The

Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 22.09.2018

converted the lands for non-agricultural residential

purposes.

5. The appellants who publish a local

newspaper namely 'Shalini Vani', filed a writ petition

as public interest litigation namely W.P.

No.1549/2021, in which order dated 18.11.2010

passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner was

assailed inter alia on the ground that the grant of the

schedule property is not genuine. The Division Bench

of this Court by an exparte order dated 28.01.2021

directed the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry

to ascertain whether the order of grant dated

16.01.1965 is genuine and to submit a report to this

Court on or before 18.03.2021. The Deputy

Commissioner instead of submitting a report, passed

an order on 12.08.2021 and held that the order of

grant is not genuine as the grant of the schedule

property was not acted upon. Thereafter, by an order

dated 24.08.2021 the writ petition was disposed of on

the ground that grievance of the appellants does not

survive as the order of grant has been found to be not

genuine by the Deputy Commissioner in his order

dated 12.08.2021. However, liberty was reserved to

respondent No.4 to assail the said order in a writ

petition.

6. The respondent No.4 filed a writ petition.

The learned Single Judge by an order dated

08.06.2022 quashed the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner on the ground that the same has been

passed in ignorance of an earlier order passed by

Division Bench of this Court upholding the grant in

favour of respondent No.5. The name of respondent

No.4 was also directed to be restored in the revenue

records. In the aforesaid factual background this

appeal has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants

submitted that the learned Single Judge grossly erred

in setting aside the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner dated 12.08.2021, merely on the

ground that the same has been passed in

contravention of the order passed by the Division

Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that, it

ought to have been appreciated that the order was

passed by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance of

an interim order dated 28.01.2021 in a public interest

litigation. It is also submitted that, the order of grant

is a fake document.

8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel

for respondent No.4 submitted that, the order of grant

was made in the year 1964 and its validity was sought

to be questioned in a public interest litigation after a

period of 57 years. It is also pointed out that there is

no element of public interest involved in the petition.

It is also submitted that, the validity of the grant in

favour of the grantees has been examined more than

once and several complaints have been dismissed and

therefore, this appeal deserves dismissal.

9. We have considered the submissions made

by both the sides and have perused the records.

Admittedly, an order of grant was made on

15.08.1964 and the grant certificates were issued to

the predecessor-in-title of respondent No.4 on

16.01.1965. The Special Deputy Commissioner in the

order dated 18.11.2010 recorded a finding that the

grant was made in favour of the grantees. The

aforesaid order was upheld by a single bench of this

Court by an order dated 04.11.2011 in W.P.

No.28765/2011. The aforesaid order was challenged

in a writ appeal by the State Government in W.A.

No.2206/2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn by

an order dated 09.10.2013.

10. Thus, the order dated 18.11.2010 passed

by the Deputy Commissioner has attained finality.

The grant made in favour of the grantees in the year

1964 was sought to be challenged by the appellants,

who publish newspaper namely 'Shalini Vani' in a

public interest litigation after 57 years. A Division

Bench of this Court by an ad-interim exparte order

dated 280.01.2021 directed as under:

"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 23rd March 2021. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the first to fifth respondents. Liberty is granted to serve notice on sixth to eighth respondents on their Standing Counsel. We direct the second respondent to hold an enquiry into the question whether the grant dated 16th January 1965 which is referred in prayer clause (1) is a genuine grant and there was a decision taken by the competent authority to make such a grant. The report shall be submitted to this Court on or before 18th March 2021 through the Office of the Government Advocate."

Thus, it is evident that the Deputy Commissioner

was directed to submit a report with regard to this

Court. It is also pertinent to mention that the fact of

passing of an order dated 18.11.2010 and the fact

that it has already been upheld in W.P.

No.28765/2011 and the intra court appeal preferred

by the State Government viz., WA No.2206/2013 has

been withdrawn, was not brought to the notice of this

Court. In any case, a Division Bench of this Court

had only directed the Special Deputy Commissioner to

submit a report. However, the Deputy Commissioner

who was aware about the previous order passed on