Karnataka High Court
Smt Pilla Chennamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
WP No. 870 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 870 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PILLA CHENNAMMA
D/O MUNIKEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/A NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE
KATTIGENAHALLI
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
DHARMALINGAM BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: HIGH REVENUE DEPARTMENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YELAHANKA DIVISION
BANGALORE-560064
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
WP No. 870 of 2023
K G ROAD, 2ND FLOOR
BANGALORE
4. THE TAHASILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT-560064
5. RAJIV GANDHI HOUSING
CORPORATION LTD.,
9TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560009
REPRESENTED BY
HEMANTH RAJ P
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHENDRA S.S., GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
SMT.SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE
R4 VIDE NO. LND(JALA) CR/205/2021-22 AT (ANNEXURE -R)
CONSEQUENTLY AND THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO
CONTINUE THE RTC ENTRIES IN COMPUTER RECORDS AND
ISSUE KHATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT
OF SY.NO.28 MEASURING 4 ACRES OF KATTIGENAHALLI
VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
WP No. 870 of 2023
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This writ petition arises out of the non-compliance of
the direction issued by this Court in the previous round of
litigation. In W.P.No.12224/2022, this petitioner had
sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-
authorities to continue the name of the petitioner in the
land records and issue computerized RTC reflecting the
name of the petitioner in the Record of Rights in respect of
4 acres of land in Sy.No.28 of Kattigenahalli village,
Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. This Court
found that the petitioner's father Sri.Munikempanna was
granted 4 acres of land in the year 1960-61 and the
Saguvali Chit was also issued in his favour. It was the
contention of the petitioner that the name of the
petitioner's father was reflecting in the Right of Records till
a particular point of time after which the Record of Rights
were digitized and computerized RTCs were being issued
by the Revenue Department. It was the grievance of the
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
petitioner that the petitioner's father's name was not
continued after digitization and in the computerized
Pahani, the name of the petitioner's father was not
reflected.
2. However, the revenue authorities were taking a
stand that no such land seems to have been granted in
favour of the petitioner's father. During the course of the
previous round of litigation, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner had placed on record a communication dated
05.01.2021 made by the Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk,
Bengaluru North (Additional). It was noticed that in the
said communication the Tahsildar had verified the original
records and he found that the portion of the Grant
Register has become fragile. However, an extract of the
grant order was taken from the Grant Register, which
would show that Sri.Munikempanna was granted 4 acres of
land in Sy.No.28 of Kattigenahalli village. This Court by
order dated 29.09.2022 directed the Tahsildar, Yalahanka
Taluk to favorably consider the grievance of the petitioner
since it was found by the communication made by the
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk that the grant was indeed
made in favour of the petitioner's father. The Tahsildar
was required to pass necessary orders on the
representation given by the petitioner to continue the
name of the petitioner in the land records having regard to
the clarification issued by the counterpart, Tahsildar,
Devanahalli Taluk.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
consequent to the directions issued by this Court, the
respondent-Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk has issued the
impugned endorsement dated 28.11.2022 stating that he
has verified the scanned copy of the grant order bearing
LND/SR/167/1960-61 in respect of Sy.No.43 of Doddajala
village and further, on local inspection conducted on
20.10.2022, it is found that the petitioner was not in
possession of the land in question. Consequently, the
Tahsildar declined to enter the name of the petitioner in
the Right of Records. The petitioner is aggrieved of the
impugned endorsement issued by the Tahsildar.
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
4. Subsequently, there are certain other
development which was recorded by this Court. During
the course of these proceedings an impleading application
was filed on behalf of Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing
Corporation Limited, while contending that the corporation
has been granted 5 acres and 7 guntas of land in Sy.No.28
of Kattigenahalli village on 03.09.2022. The claim of the
corporation is that the petitioner is trying to interfere in
the land that has been granted in favour of the corporation
and therefore, the corporation sought to implead itself in
these proceedings. It was directed that the application will
be considered along with the main matter.
5. During the course of these proceedings, this
Court had directed the respondent-Tahsildar to furnish the
original Grant Register. This Court in the daily order dated
21.02.2023 noticed that in the previous round of litigation
the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk, had made a
communication dated 05.01.2021 to the Tahsildar,
Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru North (Additional), enclosing
an extract of the grant order taken from the Grant
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
Register which would show that Sri.Munikempanna was
indeed granted 4 acres of land in Sy.No.28 of
Kattigenahalli Village. On instructions from the Tahsildar,
the learned Additional Government Advocate had
submitted that the Tahsildar had made all arrangements
to enter the name of the petitioner in the computerized
RTC and made a request to the Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District, in his communication dated
04.02.2023 requesting for thumb impression of the
Deputy Commissioner, to conclude the process of entering
the name of the petitioner in the computerized RTC. The
Deputy Commissioner had written back to the Tahsildar
that since the land in question is very valuable piece of
property, the Tahsildar should ensure that a review
petition is filed in respect of the order dated 25.01.2023
passed by this Court.
6. Subsequently, the State had also filed an appeal
in W.A.No.373/2023 calling in question the daily order
dated 21.02.2023. In the meanwhile, a contempt petition
was also filed by the petitioner in CCC No.493/2023. The
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 28.06.2023 was of
the opinion that the State and its authorities should be
given an opportunity to place all records to enable this
Court to consider all the records and thereafter decide the
matter on merits. The contempt petition as well as the
writ appeal, were disposed of on 28.06.2023, while
remitting the matter back to this Court to decide the writ
petition on merits.
7. The Hon'ble Division Bench had also directed the
learned Additional Government Advocate to file an
Affidavit within two weeks making reference to the
relevant records which would facilitate this Court to
consider the controversy, along with the list of documents.
Accordingly, the learned Government Advocate had filed
on 20.07.2023 an Affidavit of the Tahsildar, Yalahanka
Taluk along with 17 documents marked as Annexures-R1
to R17. The learned Government Advocate had contended
based on the said documents that the grant order referred
in the communication made by the Tahsildar, Devanahalli
Taluk is not a genuine one, since the scanned copy of the
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
same did not contain such an information. It was also
clarified that earlier the jurisdiction of Kattigenahalli village
fell within the limits of Tahsildar of Jala Hobli, which was
within the jurisdiction of Devanahalli Taluk. However, after
bifurcation, the village in question falls within the
jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk.
Nevertheless, this Court had once again secured the
original Grant Register and after perusing the same, this
Court found that at page No.63 there is an entry at
Sl.No.167 showing the name of Sri.Munikempanna having
been granted 4 acres of land. The original record was kept
in safe custody of this Court.
8. Learned Government Advocate had argued that
the Grant Register may have been manipulated and
considering the fact that it is a standalone document,
which is not supported by any other documents such as
Issue Register, Mutation Register Extracts and the Record
of Rights, the contention of the petitioner cannot be
accepted. This Court had therefore directed the learned
Additional Government Advocate to secure the original
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
Issue Register pertaining to the land in question, having
regard to the relevant date wherein it is claimed that the
Saguvali Chit was issued in favour of Sri.Munikempanna.
Accordingly, the original Issue Register was also brought
before this Court. Having perused the original Issue
Register this Court found that the name of
Sri.Munikempanna was entered in the original Issue
Register which also contains reference to orders passed by
the Tahsildar in LND/SR-167/1961-62. Both the records
were retained in the safe custody of this Court.
9. Having regard to the factual findings, after having
perused the original Grant Register as well as Saguvali
Chit Issue Register, this Court is required to consider the
submissions of the learned Government Advocate who had
contended that the Record of Rights (Pahanies) which
were furnished by the petitioner were all hand written
Pahanies, which were concocted and in the original
revenue records, no such Pahani was made out in the
name of Sri.Munikempanna.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
10. Having regard to these factual findings, this
Court should notice that it has become a regular affair
where the revenue authorities do admit that the grant
orders have been passed by the competent authority at an
undisputed point of time, however, in many such cases, it
was contended that either Saguvali Chits were not issued
or even after Saguvali Chits were issued, the names of the
grantees were not entered in the land records. Having
regard to such grave situation, this Court has issued
directions to the revenue authorities to verify from the
original records and if it is found that the grant orders
have been passed, then it would be the bounden duty of
the revenue authorities to proceed to issue Saguvali Chits
and enter the names of the original grantees in the land
records.
11. Having said so, in the present case, this Court
having verified from the original Grant Register and the
original Issue Register found the name of
Sri.Munikempanna entered and therefore, the counter
argument on the part of the learned Government Advocate
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
that the entries could have been manipulated cannot be
accepted. It is the Tahsildar, who is the custodian of the
original records. If such contentions are accepted, then it
will become even more difficult for the Government to
answer as to how such allegations can be made and
accepted on behalf of the Government that their own
officers such as the Tahsildars are becoming parties for
manipulation of the original records. This Court has to
notice that in several such cases, where the names of the
grantees which were standing in the revenue records were
sought to be deleted after several decades on the ground
that there was no record to show that there was grant
made in favour of the person, this Court has come down
heavily on such officers having noticed the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad
Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71 and
Joint Collector Rnaga Reddy District Vs. D. Narasing
Rao and Others (2015) 3 SCC 695 that such action
have to be taken, even if it is a case of fraudulent entry,
within reasonable time.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
12. In the present case, this Court having found the
entry of the name of the petitioner's father in the original
Grant Register and the Saguvali Chit Issue Register,
deems it fit to direct the respondent-authorities viz., the
Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District, to proceed to enter the name of
the petitioner in the land records without raising any
objections that the original records are not available. This
Court having perused the original records, will restrain the
respondent-Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner from
further making comments regarding the entry in the
original record.
13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned endorsement dated 28.11.2022 at Annexure-R
issued by the respondent-Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk is
hereby set aside while directing the respondent-Tahsildar
and the Deputy Commissioner to enter the name of the
petitioner in the Right of Records as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5875
14. All the original records are returned to the
learned Additional Government Advocate, forthwith.
15. Having regard to the above facts and the
directions issued by this Court, the grant of land
overlapping the land belonging to the petitioner in favour
the respondent-Shri Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing
Corporation Limited, shall stand recalled by the Deputy
Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner shall ensure that
the grant, if required to be made to the respondent-
Corporation, the same shall not overlap the land belonging
to the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
16. In view of disposal of the main petition, all
pending Interlocutory Applications do not survive for
consideration and are accordingly stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
CT: JL
