Karnataka High Court

Smt. Bhagyamma vs Sri B Ravikumar Reddy on 20 February, 2023

Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil

                                             -1-
                                                      WA No.338 of 2020




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

                                        PRESENT

                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                                             AND

                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL

                          WRIT APPEAL NO.338 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)

                 BETWEEN:

                 1.   SMT. BHAGYAMMA
Digitally             D/O LATE. PAPACHAR,
signed by             AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS.
RUPA V
Location: High   2.   SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
Court of
Karnataka             S/O LATE ANJANAPPA
                      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

                      BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
                      KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI
                      BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL)
                      TALUK-560064.

                                                           ...APPELLANTS
                 (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
                     SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADV.,)
                 AND:

                 1.   SRI. B. RAVIKUMAR REDDY
                      S/O LATE GOPAL REDDY
                      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                      R/AT 46/1, C M MOHAN BUILDING,
                      YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560 022.

                 2.   SRI. P. JAGANNATHA REDDY
                      S/O MUNIRATHNAM REDDY
                              -2-
                                       WA No.338 of 2020




     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
     NO. 285, 11TH-A-CROSS
     17TH MAIN, JP NAGAR
     BANGALORE -560 078.

3.   THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONERR
     BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
     BANGALORE -560 009.

                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SESHADRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
  SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R3)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION   NO.5891/2017     DATED    07/04/2020   AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 IN WP NO.5891/2017 AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal emanates from an order

dated 07.04.2020 passed by Learned Single Judge by

which writ petition preferred by the respondents No.1

and 2 has been allowed. In order to appreciate the

grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention,

which are stated infra.

WA No.338 of 2020

2. The appellant No.1 was in unauthorized

possession of land measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas,

whereas, father of appellant No.2 viz., Anjanappa was in

unauthorized possession of land measuring 3 acres and

20 guntas of Sy.No.67 situate at Village Kadiganahalli,

Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The then Tahsildar,

Devanahalli Taluk on 01.02.1978, forwarded a report to

Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub division

proposing regularization of unauthorized possession of

appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 in respect of

land in question. The then Deputy Commissioner by an

order dated 29.12.1978 granted aforesaid land

measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas and 3 acres and 20

guntas in favour of appellant No.1 and father of

appellant No.2. Thereafter, a mutation was effected by

an order dated 07.05.1994 in favour appellant No.1 and

father of appellant No.2. However, the Tahsildar,

WA No.338 of 2020

Bengaluru North by an order dated 20.10.2003 removed

the names of the appellants from the revenue records.

3. The appellants challenged the order passed

by the Tahsildar in two separate appeals before the

Assistant Commissioner who by an order dated

03.06.2005 allowed the appeals and directed the

Tahsildar to re-consider the case of the appellants.

However, the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner was not implemented. Thereupon the

appellants filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.10247/2007,

which was disposed of by an order dated 02.07.2007

with a direction to consider the representation dated

05.-08.2005 submitted by the appellants and to comply

with the directions issued by the Assistant

Commissioner.

4. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated

18.06.2013 inter alia found that the grant in respect of

the land in question made in favour of the appellants is

WA No.338 of 2020

genuine and also recorded a finding that the documents

relating to grant in question are also genuine. However,

the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was not

implemented. Thereupon the appellants again filed a

writ petition viz., W.P.No.37384-85/2014, which was

disposed of by Learned Single Judge of this court with a

direction to consider the representation submitted by

the appellants and to implement the order dated

18.06.2013 passed by the Special Deputy

Commissioner, Bangalore North Taluk within a period of

three months. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the

Tahsildar, Bangalore North, by an order dated

03.09.2014 effected the mutation in favour of the

appellants.

5. The said order was challenged by respondents

No.1 and 2 in two appeals before Assistant

Commissioner, which were dismissed by an order dated

08.06.2015. The aforesaid order 02.08.2015 passed by

WA No.338 of 2020

the Assistant Commissioner was challenged in before

the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy commissioner

conducted an enquiry and by an order dated

31.08.2016 inter alia held that the grant made in favour

of the appellants is genuine and the petitions filed by

respondents No.1 and 2 were dismissed.

6. The order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner dated 31.08.2016 was challenged in a

writ petition. The Learned Single Judge by an order

dated 07.04.2020 has set aside the order dated

31.08.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and

inter alia held that the appellants are not the grantees

of the land in question and their claim is based on

forged and concocted documents. It has been declared

that they have no right, title or interest either in

erstwhile survey No.67 or in new Survey No.100/1 and

100/2 of Kadiganahalli Village, Devenahalli, Bangalore.

The officers of the revenue department have been

WA No.338 of 2020

directed to register khatha in respect f land bearing

Sy.No.100/1 and 100/2 measuring 4 acres and 30

guntas in the names of respondentsNo.1 and 2 and to

issue necessary documents within 60 days. In addition,

the appellants have been directed to pay costs of Rs.1

Lakh each for the reason that they had set up a claim in

respect of the land in question on the basis of fake and

fraudulent documents. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

pointed out that by an order dated 18.06.2013 passed

under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964 grant in favour of the appellants has been

found to be genuine. However, the aforesaid order was

not challenged. It is further submitted that a declaration

with regard to title could not have been made in a writ

petition especially in view of the fact that civil suits with

respect to subject matter of dispute are pending

WA No.338 of 2020

adjudication between the parties. It is further submitted

that Learned Single Judge travelled beyond the scope of

the writ petition and has recorded findings of fact

without giving an opportunity to the appellants and

contrary to the findings recorded by the civil court. It is

further submitted that investigation of title in a writ

petition is not permissible. Alternatively it is urged that

in case, Learned Single Judge found any infirmity in the

order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the matter

should have been remitted to him. In support of

aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on

division bench decision of this court in 'SMT.SUGUNA

RAJKUMAR VS. R.RAJMAL AND ANOTHER', ILR 2005

KAR 1583 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

'BHAGIRATHDAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND

OTHERS', (1992) 4 SCC 64.

8. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel

for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the land in

WA No.338 of 2020

question is an inam land and respondents No.1 and 2

have derived the title from original grantee. It is further

submitted that the order dated 29.12.1978 i.e., the

alleged order of grant refers to three different villages,

different names, different survey numbers and different

extents. It is also submitted that on perusal of original

record perused by the State Government before the

Learned Single Judge the Learned Single Judge has

recorded a finding that the order of grant is a forged

document and the entire proceeding is farce, concocted,

fabricated with false insertions. It is further submitted

that the lands which are allegedly granted to the

appellants are not identifiable and the appellants even

after the grant in the year 1978 did not make an

attempt to get their names mutated for 22 years. It is

urged that on verification of the original record, Learned

Single Judge has rightly recorded a finding that the

grant in favour of the appellants is fabricated, concocted

and is not genuine. It is argued that there is neither any

- 10 -

WA No.338 of 2020

investigation nor any enquiry by the Learned Single

Judge. It is also contended that a writ court is neither

included nor prohibited from entering into questions of

fact. It is also urged that in the instant case, the

Learned Single Judge did not dwell into disputed

questions of fact and the title of the respondents No.1

and 2 in respect of land in question has never been

assailed by the appellants. It is argued that since, the

fraud has been committed by the public authorities, it is

a case of public fraud. It is also urged that Learned

counsel for appellants was unable to rebut the

inferences with regard to creation, concoction of fake

and false documents arising from the record and the

remedy of the appellants in such a case was to seek

review of the order of the Learned Single Judge. In

support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been

placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

'STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMDAS SHRINIVAS

NAIK, AIR 1982 SC 1249, COLLECTOR, LAND

- 11 -

WA No.338 of 2020

ACQUSITIION ANANTNAG AND ANOTHER VS. M/S

KATIJI AND OTHERS', (1987) 2 SCC 107,

R.RAMEGOWDA, MAJOR VS. SPECIAL LAND

ACQUSITION OFFICER (1988) 2 SCC 142 and decision

of Calcutta High Court in 'SARAT CHANDRA VS.

BIBHABATI DEBI', AIR 1921 CAL 584.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate

submitted that the order passed by Special Deputy

Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, 1964 in relation to mutation entries

was under challenge before the Learned Single Judge. It

is further submitted that the order dated 18.06.2013

passed in favour of the appellants holding that the grant

in favour of the appellants is genuine has been set aside

by Learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated

11.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.9540-9541/2015 and the

matter was restored to the file of Special Deputy

Commissioner who had passed an order in favour of the

- 12 -

WA No.338 of 2020

appellants again on 31.08.2016. It is fairly submitted by

learned Additional Government Advocate that the order

of grant in favour of the appellants still subsists and the

same was not an issue before the Learned Single Judge.

10. We have considered the rival submissions and

have perused the record. Chapter XI of Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964 deals with record of rights. Section

127 of the Act provides for the manner in which the

records of rights shall be maintained and prepared.

Section 128 of the Act requires a person to report the

acquisition of rights to the prescribed officer of the

village. Section 129 of the Act deals with registration of

mutations and register of disputed cases. Section 136 of

the Act provides for remedy of appeal and revision.

Section 136 of the Act is extracted below for the facility

of reference:

- 13 -

WA No.338 of 2020

136. Appeal and Revision.--(1) The provisions of Chapter V shall not apply to any decision or order under this Chapter. (2) Any person affected by an order made under sub- section (4) or an entry certified under sub- section (6) of section 129 may, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order or the knowledge of the entry certified, appeal to such officer as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf and his decision shall be final. (3) The Deputy Commissioner may, on his own motion or on application of a party, call for and examine any records made under section 127 and section 129 and pass such orders as he may deem fit: Provided that no order shall be passed except after hearing the party who would be adversely affected by such order.

11. It is trite law that mere entries made in the

revenue records do not confer any title on any party.

The order impugned in the writ petition dated

31.08.2016 was an order passed in exercise of powers

under Section 136(3) of the Act.

- 14 -

WA No.338 of 2020

12. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the

prayer made in the writ petition, which reads as under:

(i) A writ pf certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.08.2016, passed by the 3rd respondent i.e., Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division in RRT (2)(E) CR 177/2009-10, connected with Revenue Misc. No.103/15-16 and Revenue Misc.No.104/15-16 (Anneuxre-A).

(ii) To order for such other relief if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.

13. Thus, it is evident that the scope of the writ

petition was only with regard to examination of validity

of the order directing revenue entries to be made in

favour of the appellants. The title of the appellants viz.,

the order of grant made in favour of the appellants was

not the subject matter of the petition. However, Learned

Single Judge on production of the record examined the

- 15 -

WA No.338 of 2020

title of the appellants in respect of the land in question

and held as under:

This writ petition is allowed.

ii. The order impugned dated 31.8.2016 passed in RRT.2(E) CR. 177/09-10 c/w Rev.Misc.103/15- 16 and Rev.Misc.104/15-16 is hereby quashed. iii. While doing so, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the light of aforesaid discussion, further enquiry is not required in this matter.

The finding given in this writ petition with reference to the claim of respondents 1 and 2 that they are not grantees of the land in question is proved beyond reasonable doubt and their claim to land in question is on the basis of fake, forged and concocted documents. Hence, it is hereby declared that they have no manner of right, title or interest to any extent of land either in erstwhile Sy.No.67 or in new Sy.No.100/1 and 100/2 of Kadiganahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru.

- 16 -

WA No.338 of 2020

iv. This Court would also order that the officers of the revenue department shall forthwith register katha of Sy.No.100/1 and 100/2 to an extent of 4 acres 30 guntas i.e., 2 acres 30 guntas in the name of first petitioner and 2 acres in the name of second petitioner in the aforesaid land and shall issue necessary documents with reference to revenue entries in their name within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

v. While doing so, it is hereby declared that the claim of respondents 1 and 2 with reference to land bearing Sy.No.100/1 and 100/2 measuring to an extent of 4 acres 30 guntas, is on the basis of fraudulent documents and therefore, they are not entitled to any such relief.

vi. That the respondents 1 and 2 to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The same is imposed for the reason that on the basis of fake and fraudulent documents they have approached this Court on several occasions in wasting valuable time of this Court. The respondents 1 and 2 to deposit the cost within

- 17 -

WA No.338 of 2020

two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. Therefore, it is evident that the Learned Single

Judge travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition

and examined the question of title of the appellants,

which was not even challenged by the respondents No.1

and 2 in the writ petition. It is trite law that this court

cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be decided

in respect of the disputes for which the remedy under

the civil law is available. The Learned Single Judge

therefore, erred in issuing the impugned directions.