Karnataka High Court

Smt. Vajramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2023

Bench: K.Natarajan

                             1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           REVIEW PETITION NO.84 OF 2021
                  CONNECTED WITH
           REVIEW PETITION NO.86 OF 2021
                        IN
               W.P.NO.12915 OF 2021

IN REVIEW PETITION NO.84 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SMT. VAJRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
D/O. LATE DEPOT MUNIYAPPA,
R/AT A. K. COLONY,
TALAGHATTA PURA VILLAGE AND POST
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 061.
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE
 FOR SRI. PRADEEP M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
    REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
    REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
    M.S. BUILDING,
    BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
    BENGALURU - 560 009.

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
    BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
                            2

   BENGALURU - 560 004.

4 . SMT. JAYANTHI SHIVRAM
    W/O. SHIVRAM,
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    R/AT NO. 109, 4TH CROSS,
    R.K. LAYOUT,
    PADAMANABHANAGAR,
    BENGALURU-560 070.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
 SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF C.P.C. PRAYING TO (I) REVIEW
THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P.NO.45868/2017(SC-ST). (II) TO GRANT ANY
OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE
ENDS OF THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN REVIEW PETITION NO.86 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

DEVARAJ
S/O HUCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT A.K. COLONY
TALAGHATTAPRUA VILLAGE AND POST
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU 560061
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE
 FOR SRI. PRADEEP M., ADVOCATE)
                              3

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
    REPRESENTED BY
    ITS SECRETARY
    REVENUE DEPARTMENT
    M.S. BUILDING
    BANGALORE - 560 001

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    BENGALURU URBAN DIDSTRICT,
    BENGALURU.

3 . THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER
    BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
    BANGALORE DISTRICT.

4 . SMT. JAYANTHI SHIVRAM
    W/O SHIVRAM
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
    R/AT NO. 109, 4TH CROSS,
    R.K. LAYOUT
    PADMANABHANAGAR
    BENGALURU 560070
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
 SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF C.P.C. PRAYING TO (I) REVIEW
THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P.NO.45868/2017(SC-ST). (II) TO GRANT ANY
OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE
ENDS OF THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 5.6.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
                                        4

                                  ORDER

The Petitioner in R.P.No.84/2021 is filed by

Smt.Vajramma who was respondent No.4 in

W.P.No.45868/2017 (SC-ST) filed this review petition for

reviewing the order passed by this court dated 9.12.2019

for having allowed the writ petition which was field by the

present respondent No.4/Jayanthi Shivram.

2. The Review Petition No.86/2021 is filed by the

petitioner Devraj who is respondent No.4 in the

W.P.No.45869/2017 filed for reviewing the order dated

9.12.2019 for having allowed the writ petition filed by the

respondent No.4/Jayanthi Shivram.

3. In both the petitions the respondent No.4/ Smt.

Jayanthi Shivram is common and hence the fact and law is

also similar, therefore, both matters are taken together for

common disposal.

4. The case of the review petition in RP.No.84/2021

is that, this court while considering writ petition filed by

the respondent No.4, this court allowed the petition on the

ground, the land in question was granted in favour of one

depot Muniyappa on 21.6.1957 with a condition not to

alienate the land for 15 years and the sale deed was

affected in the year 1995 i.e., after commencement of the

Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands act, 1978 (herein

referred as PTCL Act) which came into force on 1.1.1979.

But the respondent No.4 who in these review petitions are

the legal heirs of the original grantee, who filed application

for canceling the sale deed in the year 2014-15 and

thereby this court allowed the writ petition and set aside

the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in case

No.K.SC&ST (S)14/2014-15 which was upheld by the Dy.

commissioner in No.K.SC&ST (A).81/2015-16.

5. The learned counsel for review petitioner has

contended that this court considered that the application

came to be filed for restoration with delay of 19 years,

therefore the order of the revenue courts were set aside.

But infact the review petitioner filed application for

restoration in the year 2002 itself as per the document

produced. The documents were obtained through RTI,

which clearly reveals the application were filed by the

review petitioner long back i.e., in the year 2002.

Therefore, there was error apparent on the face of the

record as per the document produced by the review

petitioner, on that ground, the order requires to be

reviewed. In support of his contention learned counsel for

petitioner relied upon Dharma Naika Vs Rama Naika

and another reported in 2008 (3) Karnataka law

Journal 188 (SC).

6. Learned counsel further contended that the

restoration of the lands were initiated within 6 years and

there is no delay. Therefore, the order under review shall

be set aside, hence prayed for allowing the petition.

7. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for

the respondent No.4 has contended that there is no error

on the face of the record in the order passed by this court.

Even the respondent sought the information through RTI

regarding filing of the application by the review petitioner

in the year 2002 in respect of Sl.No.4348 produced by the

petitioner for applying the restoration application, but the

information received that there is no such document

available in the Assistant Commissioner office, which

reveals the petitioner forged the register and created the

document to show she has filed application in the year

2002 itself. Even this court had called Tahsildar before the

court and in his contention he had submits that there is no

such register/files available in the office in order to show

the petitioner have filed any such application in the year

2002 for canceling the sale deed and also contended that

the court should dismiss the review petition and also

initiate proceedings against petitioner for creating the false

document and in support of the same relied upon

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. In review petition No.86/2021 the petitioner was

respondent No.4 in the original writ petition where the

present respondent No.4/Jayanthi Shivram challenged the

order of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner

for restoring the land in favour of the petitioner/Devraj.

The same was challenged before the court by Jayanthi

Shivram and this court had set aside the order of the

Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, as the

application filed for restoration was after 19 years of the

alleged sale deed executed.

9. The learned counsel for review petitioner has

contended the petitioner has in fact filed application on

5.7.2002 itself which was entered in the register of the

Tahsildar in Sl.No.4349 and the copy of the application

also endorsed by the office of the Assistant Commissioner.

But they have misplaced that application and not taken

any action, therefore they have filed one more application

which came to be allowed. Now the petitioner got the

copy of the application and the register. If these two

documents are considered there will be no delay in filing

the restoration application. Therefore, the order passed by

this court required to be reviewed as there is error on the

face of the record.

10. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for

respondent No.4., Sri.P.P.Hegde argued that the

respondent filed an application seeking copy of the entry

as well as copy of the application dated 5.7.2002 but the

RTI officer given endorsement that no such entry is

available in their office of Assistant Commissioner and if it

is contended the petitioner have created these two

documents for the purpose of getting the order, therefore

it is contended there is no error in the order and does not

require for review. Hence prayed for dismissing the

petition.

11. Having heard the arguments and perused the

records, on perusal of the same, which reveals both the

review petitioners are claiming the right of the property as

the Government had granted land in respect of

Sy.No.12/17 measuring 1 acre 36 guntas to one depot

Muniyappa on 21.6.1957. Likewise, the government

granted land to one Huchamma in respect of Sy.No.12/3 of

Manavrathe Kaval village on 21.6.1957 both the lands

were alienated by the legal heirs of the grantee on

30.5.1995 vide registered sale deed. Subsequently, the

petitioners have filed application before the Assistant

Commissioner for restoration of the lands, in view of the

bar under Section 4 of the PTCL Act, which came to be

allowed by the Assistant Commissioner and the same has

been challenged by the purchaser before the Deputy

Commissioner which also came to be dismissed. Hence,

the purchaser who is Jayanthhi Shivram in both cases have

filed Writ Petition Nos.45868/2017 and 45869/2017 (SC-

ST) and this court heard the arguments and allowed the

writ petitions by setting aside the order of the Assistant

Commissioner mainly on the ground there was delay of 19

years in challenging the said sale deed.

12. Now the contention of the review petitioners

who are the legal heris of the grantee are that in fact, they

have filed application for restoration on 5.7.2002 itself, the

same was noted in the Register maintained by the office of

the Assistant Commissioner, which were recorded in the

not able to produce before the court while arguing the case

on merits. If those applications are considered, the delay

was only 7 years. Therefore, there cannot be said

inordinate delay hence prayed for reviewing the order.

13. On the other hand the respondent counsel has

objected and contended that the respondent also filed an

application before the officer of the Assistant

Commissioner for furnishing the certified copy of the

on 5.7.2002. The office of the Deputy Commissioner, the

concerned Information Officer given endorsement on

16.6.2021 stating that there is no reference available in

the register regarding filing of any applications between

1.6.2002 and 31.7.2002 and he also stated the that from

Page Nos.216 to 345 is available but there is no page i.e,

from 223 to 254 is available.

14. Learned Senior counsel for respondent has

strenuously contended the petitioner have created these

two documents in order to show they have filed application

in the year 2002 itself which were forged documents and

there is no reference available to show these applications

were available in the Assistant Commissioner's office or

the register available in the Assistant Commissioner Office.

The public relation officer under RTI Act also issued

endorsement on 29.6.2021 showing that the Sl.No.4340 to

4350 are not available on record.

15. The petitioners are claiming the applications

were entered in the register in Sl.Nos.4348 and 4349 but

as per the report of the Information Officer, under RTI Act,

no such serial number and entries were available in Inward

available in the office of the Assistant Commissioner for

having received the application of these petitioners on

5.7.2022.

16. Therefore, in the application said to be filed by

the revision petitioner on 5.7.2022 they were not found in

the Inward Register maintained by the office of Assistant

Commissioner and the Sl.Nos.4348 and 4349 appears to

be created subsequently by the petitioner in order to show

there is no delay in filing the application before the

revenue authorities for canceling the sale deed. Even the

petitioner not able to produce any other document to show

the said application and the register were genuine. Such

being the case, it is not possible to accept the contention

of the petitioner.

17. That apart for maintaining the review petition,

the petitioner must show the order passed by this court,

on the face of the record there was an error on record.

Absolutely, there is no error or mistake on the face of the

record, to show in order to review the order passed by this

court. Though the respondent counsel relied upon the

judgment of the supreme court reported in (2008) 12

SCC 481 in the case of KD Sharma Vs Steel Authority

Of India an others and contended that the enquiry must

be held at para 38 and 39 as under:--

"38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The

very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the court knows law but not facts".

39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court."

18. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court it is necessary to issue direction to the office of the

Deputy Commissioner to make an enquiry in respect of the

application filed by the petitioner on 5.7.2002 and the RTI

application filed by both parties and information furnished

by both parties and prepare a report and take action

against the persons who have committed any fraud in

creating the documents or giving false information under

the RTI Act.

19. Learned senior counsel for respondent also

relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 in the case of Kamalesh