Karnataka High Court
Sri A Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
WP No. 669 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 669 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A. VENKATESH
S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25,
H D DEVEGOWDA ROAD,
R T NAGAR BANGALORE-32
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPT. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
Digitally signed by
KRISHNAPPA LAXMI DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
YASHODA BENGLAURU-560001
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGLAURU-560001
3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-3
BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION
BANGALORE-560009
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
WP No. 669 of 2024
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009
5. TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560009
6. DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE,
KARNATAKA CIRCLE,
K KAMRAJ ROAD
BENGALURU-560042
7. PARACHUTE REGIMENT
TRAINING CENTRE (PRTC)
(INDIAN ARMY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
UNION OF INDIA)
J C NAGAR
BENGALURU-560006
REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5
SRI. KUMAR M.N., CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FOR R6 & R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH
ANNEXURE-L DATED 23/05/2023 ON THE FILE OF RRT(2)(NA)
CR.28/2010-11 PASSED BY THE R3, SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER-3, IAS CADRE BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION,
BENGALURU -09 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS MAY BE
DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
WP No. 669 of 2024
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order at
Annexure-L dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Special
Deputy Commissioner-3, Bengaluru North Sub-Division in
proceedings bearing No.RRT(2) (NA)CR:28/2010-11 and
the petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings bearing
No.LND(Appeal):15/2016-17 pending consideration before
respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North
Sub-Division.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this
case has got a checkered history. The claim of the
petitioner is regarding 2 acres of land in Sy.No.1 of
Savarline village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
The petitioner is claiming under the original grantee-
Sri.Nagarajappa, who is said to have been granted land in
question on 07.10.1954. It is contended that the name of
Sri.Nagarajappa was entered in the land revenue records.
In the year 1968, a registered partition deed was executed
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
between the family members of Sri.Nagarajappa.
Sri.Nagarajappa also left behind a registered Will dated
18.07.1984 in favour of the petitioner. It is contended
that the name of the petitioner has been entered in the
records of the then City Corporation of Bengaluru. It is
contended that in terms of a registered partition deed
dated 18.02.2009, site No.1 and 2 fell to the share of the
petitioner. The petitioner approached the Defence Estate
Officer to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of site
No.1 and 2, which is adjoining the defence land of the
Controller of Quality Assurance Laboratory (CQAL), as a
matter of precaution to avoid any boundary dispute. It is
contended that on 11.12.2009, the Defence Estate Officer
issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner after
verifying the Military Land Register; endorsement issued
by the Tahsildar and on physical verification, stating that
the land falls outside the boundary of the defence land.
However, subsequently, No Objection Certificate was
recalled and at the instance of respondent No.7-Parachute
Regiment Training Center (PRTC), the Special Deputy
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk initiated
proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short), in the matter of revenue entries.
3. When the proceedings were pending consideration
before the Special Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner
herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.51566/2013, seeking
a direction to the Special Deputy Commissioner to dispose
of the proceedings within a time frame. Accordingly, this
Court directed the Special Deputy Commissioner to
conclude the proceedings on or before 30.04.2014.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that when the Deputy
Commissioner did not pass orders within timeframe fixed
by this Court, the petitioner had to, initiate contempt
proceedings before this Court and during the course of the
contempt proceedings. The Special Deputy Commissioner
passed an order on 19.06.2014, remanding the matter
back to the Tahsildar. Learned Senior Counsel submits
that the Special Deputy Commissioner clearly held that the
powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act gives
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
limited power of correction of entry and not for
cancellation of entry in the revenue records. It was
directed that the contesting respondents herein who have
parallel claim to title and possession over the subject land,
may resort to the proviso to Section 135 of the Act to seek
declaration of their title over the subject land and they
may also challenge the khatha entry made in the records
of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The
Deputy Commissioner had also extracted a portion of the
judgment of this Court in W.P.No.31788/2011, wherein it
was held "where the grant is proved to be obtained by
making false or fraudulent representation or is contrary to
rules, an appeal is the remedy and the provisions under
Section 136(3) cannot be invoked for the purpose of
indirectly securing the cancellation of grant".
4. Having regard to such orders passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner would submit that it was impermissible for the
contesting respondents herein to once again approach the
Assistant Commissioner, invoking the provisions contained
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
in Section 136(2) of the Act and it was highly derogating
on the part of the Special Deputy Commissioner to once
again reopen the proceedings in RRT(2) (NA) CR:
28/2010-11, which was concluded in terms of the orders
passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on
19.06.2014.
5. Per contra, learned Central Government Senior
Panel Counsel Sri.M.N.Kumar, submits that in the order
dated 19.06.2014, the Special Deputy Commissioner had
also directed the Tahsildar to examine the case under the
relevant land grant rules having regard to the statement
made by the Tahsildar in the suit pending consideration in
O.S.No.2403/2006 and the Affidavits filed in
M.F.A.No.7264/2006 & M.F.A.No.7265/2006. The Deputy
Commissioner had also directed that keeping in view the
orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.31788/2011, the
Tahsildar, Bengaluru (North) Taluk was directed to initiate
separate enquiry under the relevant land grant legislation
prevailing at the relevant period, in order to look into all
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
aspects of grant. In that view of the matter, it is
submitted that the Tahsildar, Bengaluru (North) Taluk,
initiated proceedings in LND (Y) CR.338/2014-15 and held
that late Sri.Nagarajappa was indeed granted 2 acres of
land in the year 1954 and revenue entries were entered in
accordance with law. The Tahsildar confirmed the grant
made in favour of Sr.Nagarajappa as well as the entries
made in the revenue records. Aggrieved of the orders
passed by this Tahsildar, the contesting respondents
herein have filed an appeal before the Assistant
Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, invoking
Section 136(2) of the Act. These proceedings are called in
question by the petitioner.
6. Learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel
submits that suo motu proceeding under Section 136(3)
reviving the earlier proceedings in RRT(2) (NA)CR:
28/2010-11 at the hands of the Special Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, is for the
purpose of examining the genuineness of the grant records
in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.1 of Savarline
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
village. Having regard to the discussion made by the
Special Deputy Commissioner in his order dated
23.05.2023, which has been furnished as Annexure-L, it is
clear that the Special Deputy Commissioner, having regard
to the examination of the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.2403/2006 and in R.F.A.No.699/2002, found that
the entry in the Military Land Register is an official
document maintained by the Military Department and the
entry in the Military Land Register are entered based on
the acquisition of title and the register maintained by the
Military Department maintained by the Authority has
evidentiary value and the findings of this Court also
substantiates the said facts.
7. Having regard to the preliminary findings the
Special Deputy Commissioner has dropped the
proceedings as against the contesting respondents herein
while proceedings to further probe into the genuineness of
the grant made in favour of Sri.Nagarajappa. Learned
Central Government Senior Panel Counsel further submits
that the Special Deputy Commissioner has found from the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
records that the lands were acquired for the benefit of the
defence establishment under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act and the notifications have been gazzetted
in the Mysore Gazette between 1893-1899 for the public
purpose of Savar Parade Ground, Mysore, Imperial Service
Troops, for the erection of Gram-boiling shed for the use
of New Imperial Cavelry Line for construction of Transport
service Line. It has been noticed that nearly 600 and odd
acres were notified and acquired for the said purpose.
After publication of the said notifications, proceedings
were conducted in the year 1907 and the entire notified
area was classified into three Administration Units i.e.,
Savarline to an extent of 373.33 acres and remaining
extent were marked as Water Works and Firing Range. In
that view of the matter, the learned Central Government
Senior Panel Counsel would submit that the proceedings
having been initiated at the hands of the petitioner is
required to be taken to its logical conclusion. It is
submitted that allegations as sought to be made by the
petitioner against the contesting respondents should be
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
rejected having in view the findings given by the Special
Deputy Commissioner that the records would reveal that
the lands in question were legitimately acquired for the
benefit of defence establishment of the Union of India.
8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner, learned Central Government
Senior Panel Counsel for the contesting respondents No.6
and 7, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondent-State and revenue authorities and on perusing
the petition papers, this Court is required to consider the
contention of the petitioner regarding the suo motu
initiation of proceedings at the hands of the Special
Deputy Commissioner-3 reopening the earlier proceedings
in RRT(2) (NA)CR: 28/2010-11 and the proceedings
initiated at the hands of the contesting respondents before
the Assistant Commissioner invoking section 136(2) of the
Act. For the purpose of considering the contention of the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that having regard to the orders passed by the
Special Deputy Commissioner on 19.06.2014, this Court
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
finds that although the Special Deputy Commissioner
clearly held that the scope of Section 136(3) or for that
matter 136 of the Act was limited for the purpose of
correction of entry in the land records and not for
cancellation of entry in the revenue records, nevertheless,
directed that the contesting respondents herein may resort
to the proviso to Section 135 of the Act to seek declaration
of their title over the subject land and at the same time,
raise a challenge to the entries made in the khatha
register of the BBMP. However, the Special Deputy
Commissioner also makes an observation that in the light
of the statements made by the then Tahsildar in
O.S.No.2403/2006 and the Affidavits filed by the Tahsildar
in M.F.A.No.7264/2006 & M.F.A.No.7265/2006, it became
necessary to examine the case under land grant rules by
the competent authority, and therefore issued such
direction to the Tahsildar. In the considered opinion of
this Court such a direction or observation could not have
been made by the Special Deputy Commissioner. Even if
such directions are given, it was impermissible for the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
Tahsildar to go into the question of testing the
genuineness of the grant made in favour of
Sri.Nagarajappa way back in the year 1954 under the
Karnataka Land Grant Rules.
9. Nevertheless, this time around the Tahsildar once
again goes into question of grant said to have been made
in favour of Sri.Nagarajappa and gives a finding in the
fresh proceedings in LND(Y)CR.338/2014-15, dated
13.07.2015 that the procedures enunciated in the land
grant rules during the year 1954 were followed and
therefore, the grant made in favour of Sri.Nagarajappa to
an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.1 was held to be
genuine and in accordance with law. It was also
concluded that subsequent revenue entries following the
grant were also made in accordance with law and
therefore, they could not be any grievance on the part of
the contesting respondents regarding the revenue entries
made in favour of Sri.Nagarajappa. Aggrieved by such
findings, the contesting respondents herein have once
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
again approached the Assistant Commissioner invoking
Section 136(2) of the Act.
10. Having regard to the reiteration of the
established position of law by the Full Bench of this Court,
in the case of Smt.Jayamma and Others Vs. The State of
Karnataka and Others, reported in ILR 2020 Kar.1449,
the revenue authorities, be it, the Tahsildar, Assistant
Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner have no
jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties.
It is the exclusive domain of the competent Civil Court to
adjudicate the disputed questions of title and ultimately, if
any decree is passed by the competent civil court it shall
be binding not only on the private parties but also on the
revenue authorities. Having regard to the established
position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that
it would be impermissible in law to permit the Special
Deputy Commissioner to invoke the suo motu powers
conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act and moreso to
reopen a case which was already concluded by the Special
Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 19.06.2014, such
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
proceedings cannot be permitted to proceed, since it is
contrary to the provisions of law.
11. Insofar as the proceedings initiated by the
contesting respondents No.6 and 7 preferring an appeal
before the Assistant Commissioner invoking section 136(2)
of the Act, challenging the orders passed by the Tahsildar
on 13.07.2015 in proceedings bearing No.LND(Y)CR.
338/2014-15 are concerned, the same principles which
were enunciated in the case of Smt.Jayamma (supra)
would again apply. The Special Deputy Commissioner had
clearly held in its order dated 19.06.2014 that since a
dispute has been raised on the title of the property in
question, the parties are required to approach the
competent civil court, it is impermissible for the revenue
authorities to say anything that would touch upon the title
of the property. This Court should also notice the fact that
the suit has been filed in O.S.No.2403/2006 at the hands
of Sri.Srinivas Reddy and others against the respondents
herein, including the revenue authorities and the Union of
India, through the Defence Department. However, it has
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
to be noticed that the prayer in the suit was only for
permanent injunction. The suit has been dismissed while a
regular first appeal in RFA No.693/2007 is said to have
been preferred by the plaintiffs. This Court need not
remind the rival claimants therein that the Special Deputy
Commissioner has long back held in his order dated
19.06.2014 that the aggrieved parties will have to
approach the competent civil court to get a declaration of
title. Moreover, admittedly, the land in question is within
the jurisdiction of the BBMP and the revenue entries in the
revenue records of the State may not be of much
consequence.
12. Having regard to the findings given herein above,
this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings initiated by the Special
Deputy Commissioner-3, Bengaluru North
Division in RRT (2) (NA): 28/2010-11 is
hereby quashed and set aside. The order
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner on 23.05.2023 in the said
proceeding are also quashed and set aside.
(iii) The proceedings initiated at the hands of
respondents No.6 and 7 before the
Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North
Sub-Division in LND(Appeal):15/2016-17
and all further proceedings thereto, are
also quashed and set aside.
(iv) Having regard to the findings given by this
Court that the revenue authorities will not
be permitted to say anything regarding the
title of the property, consequentially, the
order passed by the Tahsildar in
proceedings bearing No.LND(Y)CR.
338/2014-15 dated 13.07.2015 is also
quashed and set aside.
(v) Having regard to the confusion created in
the orders passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner dated 19.06.2014, wherein
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
directions were issued to the Tasildar to
further enquire into the matter, it is hereby
clarified that the portion of the order in the
paragraphs No.4 and 5 regarding the
directions issued to the Tahsildar are also
quashed and set aside.
(vi) It is also clarified that the observation of
the Special Deputy Commissioner in
paragraph No.2 that respondents No.2 and
have parallel claim to title and possession
may resort to the proviso to Section 135 of
the Act and seek declaration of their title,
shall be read as an observation in respect
of the rival claimants and not restricted to
the respondents herein.
(vii) It is also necessary to notice here that if
the parties approach the competent civil
court seeking declaration of title, the civil
court shall consider the matter on its
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6534
merits and not give any undue importance
to the revenue entries.
13. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
CT: JL
