Karnataka High Court
Sri Ashok M vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.28878 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.19999 OF 2022
IN WP NO.28878 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. UMRAH DEVELOPERS
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.22/1,
MILLERS, TANK BUND ROAD,
KAVERIAPPA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. YUSUF SHERIFF.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ASHOK C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND PUC
K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
6. SRI. ASHOK M.
S/O LATE MARIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.357/9,
AKSHYANAGARA,
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AAG FOR
SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 10TH AUGUST, 2011 PASSED IN
RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.19999 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. ASHOK M.
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.357/9, AKSHYANAGARA,
BEGUR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND PUC,
K.G.ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
6. M/S. UMRA DEVELOPERS
NO.22/1, MILLERS TANK BUND ROAD
KAVERIAPPA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
REP. BY SRI. YUSUF SHERIFF.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AAG FOR
SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 O R5;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI YADUPATHI G., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PUBLIC AUCTION NOTIFICATION DATED 18TH MAY, 2007 MADE IN
NO.SPL.DC.PUC(AUCTION)CR/15/06-07 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 INSOFAR AS SL.NO.26 IS CONCERNED VIDE
ANNEXURE-C; QUASH THE CONFIRMATION OF PUBLIC ACTION
DATED 28TH/30TH JULY, 2007 MADE IN NO.RD 265 LGB 2007(P5)
MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M; AND ETC.
IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
In Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023, the petitioner is assailing
the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed in RRT(S)CR.236/2008-
09 by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District.
2. In Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022, the petitioner has
challenged the Public Auction Notification dated 18th May, 2007
(Annexure-C) issued by the respondent No.2-Deputy
Commissioner; confirmation of Public Auction dated 28th/30th July,
2007 (Annexure-M); Certificate of Sale dated 17th June, 2020
(Annexure-N) issued by the respondent No.2-Deputy
Commissioner; and Official Memorandum dated 17th June, 2020
(Annexure-P) issued by the respondent No.2; inter alia sought for
a direction to the respondent-Authorities to mutate the name of
the petitioner in revenue records in respect of the subject land.
3. For the sake of convenience of the parties, the facts
averred and rank of the parties in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022
has been considered for deciding the lis between the parties.
4. The relevant facts for adjudication of these writ petitions
are that;
IN WRIT PETITION NO.19999 OF 2022
The petitioner-Ashok M., pleaded that his father late
Mariyappa was in cultivation of the land bearing Survey No.107 in
'B' Block of Maylasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk to an extent of 4 acres. It is stated in the petition that the
subject land was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner
on temporary basis and same was confirmed by Official
Memorandum dated 29th January, 1957 (Annexure-A). In this
regard, copy of grant certificate and Saguvali chit issue register
are produced at Annexures 'A1' and 'A2' respectively and the copy
of the sketch is produced at Annexure-B. It is the case of the
petitioner-Ashok M., that the father of the petitioner has made
representation to the respondent No.5-Tahsildar, seeking
mutation in respect of the subject land, however, without the
knowledge of the father of the petitioner, the respondent No.2-
Deputy Commissioner proposed the land in question for Public
Auction as per Notification dated 18th May, 2007 (Annexure-C).
Hence, the father of the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.9550
of 2007 before this Court, challenging the Public Auction
Notification dated 18th May, 2007 (Annexure-C) issued by the
respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner and this Court, by order
dated 12th November, 2008 (Annexure-E), disposed of the petition
with a direction to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to
consider the grievance of the father of the petitioner with regard
to genuineness of the land granted in favour of the father of the
petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.3 has
conducted enquiry and passed order dated 10th August, 2011
(Annexure-G) holding that the grant made in favour of the father
of the petitioner is genuine and accordingly, dropped the
proceedings against the father of the petitioner. Thereafter, the
father of the petitioner made an application seeking change of
Khata, however, respondent-Authorities have not considered plea
made by the father of the petitioner. Hence, the father of the
petitioner was constrained to file Writ petition No.11426 of 2014,
seeking direction to the respondent-Authorities to effect the Khata
in respect of the subject land in his favour. This Court, by order
dated 30th March, 2016 (Annexure-H), allowed the writ petition
and directed the respondent-Authorities to consider the claim of
the father of the petitioner within eight weeks. In the meanwhile,
the father of the petitioner died on 14th June, 2016 and as such,
the petitioner made an application dated 19th April, 2022 to the
competent authority under Right to Information Act, seeking
documents relating to the Public Auction conducted by the
respondent-Authorities in respect of the subject land. Pursuant to
the same, the respondent No.2 had furnished letter of
confirmation dated 28th/30th July, 2007 (Annexure-M); Certificate
of Sale dated 17th June, 2020 (Annexure-N); and Official
Memorandum of Conversion dated 17th June, 2020 (Annexure-P),
relating to the Public Auction proposed in respect of lands by the
respondent-Authorities. It is also stated in the petition that the
respondent No.6-M/s Umrah Developers had participated in the
auction proceedings and was adjudged as highest bidder and as
such, certificate of Sale dated 17th June, 2020 (Annexure-N) was
issued in respect of the subject land. It is also stated by the
petitioner-Ashok M. that the respondent No.2-Deputy
Commissioner has issued Notification dated 17th June, 2020
(Annexure-P) in respect of conversion of the subject land in favour
of the respondent No.6. Therefore, the petitioner contended that
though the land in question has been granted in favour of the
father of the petitioner as per Official Memorandum dated 29th
January, 1957 (Annexure-A) and grant certificate dated 24th
February, 1966 (Annexure-A1), the respondent- Authorities ought
to have transferred the Khata in favour of the father of the
petitioner and further ought not to have proposed for public
auction as per Public Auction Notification dated 18th May, 2007
(Annexure-C). Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed
by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner-Ashok M. has
presented Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.28878 OF 2023
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023 is the
respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022. It is the case
of the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers that, it had purchased
the subject land in public auction pursuant to Public Auction
Notification dated 18th May, 2007 and the possession of the
subject land has been given to the petitioner-M/s. Umrah
Developers by the respondent-Authorities and thereafter, order of
conversion has been passed as per Official Memorandum dated
17th June, 2020, however, the petitioner came to know about
order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3-
Special Deputy Commissioner, wherein the respondent No.3
ordered to effect Khata of the subject land in favour of Mariyapppa
(father of the respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023).
Hence, the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers filed the writ
petition No.28878 of 2023, challenging the order of the
respondent No.3, by stating that the subject land was never been
granted in favour of the father of the respondent No.6. Hence,
Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023 is filed.
5. Heard Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of
Sri. Akarsh Kumar Gowda, appearing for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.19999 of 2022 and respondent No.6 in Writ Petition
No.28878 of 2023; Sri. V.G. Bhanuprakash, learned Additional
Advocate General along with Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5; Sri. D.R.
Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Ashok C.,
appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023 and
on behalf of Sri. Yadupathi G., appearing for respondent No.6 in
WP No.19999 of 2022.
6. Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner-Ashok M. in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 invited the
attention of the Court to Official Memorandum dated 29th January,
1957 and argued that the respondent-Authorities have granted 4
acres of land each to the father of the petitioner as well as
another grantee Sri. Hanumappa S/o Najundappa. Learned Senior
Counsel further submits that the grant certificate has been issued
on 24th February, 1996 and name of the father of the petitioner
finds place in the saguvali chit register and as such, there is no
hindrance for the respondent-Authorities to issue Khata in favour
of the father of the petitioner in terms of the sketch produced at
Annexure-B in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022. It is also argued
by the learned Senior Counsel that the father of the petitioner had
approached this Court, in Writ Petition No.9550 of 2007 and this
Court, directed the respondent-Authorities to consider the case of
the father of the petitioner with regard to genuineness of the
grant and pursuant to the same, the respondent No.3 had
conducted an enquiry and after examination of entire records
pertaining to the land in question, arrived at a conclusion that the
claim made by the father of the petitioner with regard to the grant
of land is genuine and therefore, it is contended by the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent-
Authorities ought not to have conducted the proposed auction
proceedings in respect of the subject land. Learned Senior
Counsel, by referring to the paragraph 4 of the judgment dated
30th March, 2016 passed in Writ Petition No.11426 of 2014 argued
that this Court has considered the order dated 10th August, 2011
passed in case No.RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 by respondent No.3-
Special Deputy Commissioner with regard to veracity of the grant
made in favour of the father of the petitioner and arrived at a
conclusion that the change of Khata in favour of the father of the
petitioner is only a formality and accordingly, directed the
respondent authorities to take decision in matter to carry out the
necessary changes in the revenue records and issue Khata
certificate in favour of the father of the petitioner.
7. Nextly, Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel while
referring to the letter of confirmation dated 28th/30th July, 2007
and certificate of Sale dated 17th June, 2020, argued that the said
proposed auction is contrary to the grant certificate issued in
favour of Mariyappa (father of the petitioner-Ashok M.) and
therefore, the claim made by the respondent No.6-M/s. Umrah
Developers cannot be accepted. Learned Senior Counsel also
refers to the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary to
Government dated 19th April, 2024 and argued that the averments
made in the said affidavit are far from truth and without looking
into the original records and as such, learned Senior Counsel
disputes the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary to
Government, Revenue Department.
8. In respect of the arguments on Writ Petition No.28878 of
2023, Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent No.6 therein argued that the said petition is not
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the
respondent-Government alone has to challenge the order dated
10th August, 2011 and the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers has
no locus standi to challenge the same. Accordingly, he sought for
dismissal of Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023.
9. Per contra, Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent No.6-M/s. Umrah Developers in Writ
Petition No.19999 of 2022 argued that the documents referred to
by the petitioner-Ashok M. in respect of grant of land made in
favour of Mariyappa (father of the petitioner-Ashok M.) is farce
and at no point of time, land in question was granted in favour of
the said Mariyappa and as such, he disputes Official Memorandum
dated 29th January, 1957 (Annexure-A); Grant Certificate dated
24th February, 1966 (Annexure-A1); Saguvali chit issue register
(Annexure-A2); and Sketch (Annexure-B). It is contended by
learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar that the copies at
Annexure-A series are issued to the petitioner by looking into the
Xerox copies and no original records have been verified before
issuing the Annexure-A series. Referring to the order dated 10th
August, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy
Commissioner, he submitted that the respondent No.3 himself has
stated that, he had not seen the original records relating to the
grant made in respect of land bearing Survey No.107 of
Mylasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and
therefore the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the
respondent No.3 is non-est.
10. Nextly, it is contended by D.R. Ravishankar, learned
Senior Counsel that the Government had taken decision to auction
the various vacant lands including the subject land as per letter
dated 28th /30th July, 2007 much before the order dated 12th
November, 2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9550 of
2007 and pursuant to the same, the petitioner-M/s. Umrah
Developers had participated in the auction proceedings and being
a highest bidder, purchased the subject land for a sum of
Rs.10,11,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore Eleven Lakhs only) and
further, it is submitted that, land has been converted for
residential purpose as per provision contemplated under the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Therefore it is contended by
learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar that the Writ Petition
No.19999 of 2022 requires to be dismissed, and consequently writ
petition No.28878 of 2023 be allowed.
11. Sri. V.G. Bhanuprakash, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 invited the attention
of the Court to the order dated 30th January, 2024; 01st March,
2024; and 13th March, 2024 and submitted that, pursuant to the
direction issued by this Court, the Principal Secretary to
Government, Revenue Department had filed affidavit dated 19th
April, 2024. He further argued that there is no document with
regard to grant of land made in favour of Mariyappa (father of
Sri. Ashok M.) and at no point of time, the respondent-Authorities
have issued the documents referred to at Annexure-A series and
Annexure-B to the petitioner and therefore, he contended that the
Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 is required to be dismissed.
12. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, I have perused the original documents
produced by learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for respondents 1 to 5 pertaining to the subject land. In support
of the same, the averments made in the affidavit dated 19th April,
2024 filed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department have been considered in terms of the observation
made by this Court on 30th January, 2024; 01st March, 2024; and
13th March, 2024. Order dated 13th March, 2024 reads as under:
"ORDER
On the previous date of hearing, this Court had
requested the learned Addl. Advocate General to produce
the original Grant Register of the Taluka, if not, the
scanned copy of the original Grant Register.
Today, the learned Addl. Advocate General has filed
a memo along with the scanned copy. The learned Addl.
Advocate General submits that scanned copy is of the
Saguvali Chit Issue Register and not the Grant Register.
Incidentally, the Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department is also present before this Court in order to file
an Affidavit in another matter where similar directions were
issued by this Court calling for information as to when was
the first time that the Revenue Department issued
directions to all the Deputy Commissioners and Tahsildars
to scan the original Grant Registers, Saguvali Chit Issue
Registers and Mutation Registers. When it was put to the
Principal Secretary as to the contention of the Officers of
the Bengaluru South Taluk, that there is no original Grant
Register, the Principal Secretary was fair enough to admit
that such a contention cannot be put forth.
This Court has requested the Principal Secretary to
look into the matter in the present case and ensure that if
not the original Grant Register, the scanned copy of the
Grant Register at least should be made available to this
Court.
Re-list these matters on 20.30.2024 for compliance
of the orders passed by this Court."
13. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, it is the claim of the petitioner-Ashok M.
in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 that the subject land has been
granted in favour of his father as per Official Memorandum dated
29th January, 1957 (Annexure-A); Grant Certificate dated 24th
February, 1966 (Annexure-A1); Saguvali chit issue register
(Annexure-A2); and Sketch (Annexure-B). The said grant has
been confirmed by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy
Commissioner, by order dated 10th August, 2011 in case
No.RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 in terms of the order passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No.9550 of 2007. I have carefully examined
the order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3
Special Deputy Commissioner, wherein, the respondent No.3 has
categorically stated that original grant records are not available in
the office of the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk with
regard to entries in the Saguvali chit issue register in respect of
the land bearing Survey No.107 of Mylasandra Village, Bengaluru
South Taluk, wherein, 4 acres of land has been granted in favour
of said Mariyappa and Sri. Hanumappa. The documents, verified
and examined by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy
Commissioner in proceedings RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 are only the
true copies as the same is forthcoming from the Order dated 10th
August, 2011. It is also forthcoming from perusal of Annexure-A
series in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 that those documents
have been issued by the competent authority by looking into the
xerox copies only and not verified with the original documents.
Therefore, I find force in the submission made by learned Senior
Counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, appearing for the respondent No.6-
M/s. Umrah Developers in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022. It is
also forthcoming from the writ papers that, before issuing
direction by this Court in Writ Petition No.9550 of 2007 dated 12th
November, 2008, the respondent Authorities have taken decision
to auction the various vacant lands along with the subject land as
per Public Auction of Government Lands dated 18th May, 2007. It
is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the said steps for
public auction was taken by the respondent Authorities in terms of
the letter dated 28th/30th July, 2007 (Annexure-M). This would
makes it clear that, it is the after thought of Mariyappa (father of
Sri. Ashok M.) to file Writ Petition Nos.9550 of 2007 and 11426 of
2014, seeking direction to the respondent-Authorities to issue
Khata in his favour. It is also pertinent to mention herein, the
said Mariyappa has not taken any steps for change of Khata,
immediately after issuing Annexure-A series, if so genuine, and
efforts have been made after six years, which would indicate that,
no grant of land has been made to the said Mariyappa.
14. That apart, the certificate of Sale in Form 41 dated 17th
June, 2020 was issued in favour of the respondent No.6-M/s.
Umrah Developers, who is the highest bidder in the public auction
for a final bid amount of Rs.10,11,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore
Eleven Lakhs only). It is also not in dispute that the land in
question has been converted for residential purpose as per Official
Memorandum dated 17th June, 2020 at the instance of the
application made by the respondent No.6-M/s. Umrah Developers.
It is also noted that the land in question to an extent of 17 acres
in Survey No.107 of Mylasandra Village, Bengaluru South Taluk is
vacant land as per the report dated 13th April, 2007 (Annexure-
R1). Check-list prepared by the respondent-Authorities before the
auction proceedings in respect of the subject land establish the
fact that the subject land is vacant and only two persons have
encroached the land in question viz. Siddareddy and Joseph (as
per Annexure-R2). In that view of the matter, as the subject land
has been converted for residential purpose, no interference is
called for in the Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022, in view of the law
declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.
MUNINARAYANA SWAMY AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF
KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2012 KAR 3428
and in the case of J.M. NARAYANA AND OTHERS V.
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE AND OTHERS
reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60.
15. Nextly, insofar as the submission made by Sri. R.S.
Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.19999 of 2022 with regard to genuineness of
documents at Annexure-A series, I have carefully examined the
original records provided by the learned Additional Government
Advocate and the averments made in the affidavit dated 19th
April, 2024 filed by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department. Paragraphs 24 to 30 of the affidavit reads
as under:
"24. I submit that the name of the petitioner's
father Mariyappa is not found in the Saguvali Chit Issue
Register for the year 1930 to 1932 and 1969 to 1978 and
also name of the petitioner's father Mariyappa is not found
in Form-2 (Darkasth Vahi) for the year 1945-1948 and
1983-1984 to 1995-1996 in survey number 107 of
Mylsandra Village and also in hand written Pahani and
Mutation Register.
25. I submit that, with respect of the above survey
number 107 of Mylasandra village; the original record of
GMF grant register is not mentioned in office indexing and
cataloguing.
26. I submit that, as per the Saguvali Chit Issue
Register available in the Tahsildar office and also as per the
scanned copies of the Saguvali Chit Issue Register available
the name of one Dayananda, Survey No.11, Kyalasanahalli,
village K.R.Pura Taluk is entered in Sl.No.64/1965-66 but
not Mariyappa as claimed by petitioner which stated that
his father's name is mentioned in Sl.No.64-1965-66 in
Saguvali Chit Issue Register available in the Tahsildar office
for the year 1956-57 to 1965-66.
27. I submit that, the office of Tahsildar, Bangalore
South Taluk is functioning in Kandaya Bhavana, K.G.Road
since 05.02.2012. Prior to this ,t he office was functioning
in Kids Kemp Building, opposite State Bank of Mysore. The
document produced by the petitioner which is attested
Xerox copies of Saguvali Chit Issue Register vide
endorsement No.RKCR/1071/2010-11 dated 31.03.2010 for
the year 1956-57 to 1965-66. The endorsement seal of
office indicates that Office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore
South Taluk, Kandaya Bhavan, K.G.Road has issued it, the
endorsement issued to the applicant is prima facie found to
be not genuine.
28. I submit that there is no endorsement issued to
petitioner as per the endorsement issue register 2010,
which is indexed and catalogued in record room.
29. I submit that the Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District has passed an order to effect the Khata
change in favour of Shri Mariyappa s/o Gudappa in respect
of 4 acres out of auctioned land of 17 Acres in S.No.107,
Mylasandra Village. In view of the above, M/s.Umarah
Developers has filed W.P.No.28878/2023 before the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka requesting to set aside
and quash the Order No.R.R.T(S)CR/236/2008-09 dated
10.08.2011 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District.
30. I submit that for the said case in respect of
Order No.R.R.T(S)CR/236/2008-09, dated 10.08.2011,
passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
District, the said file is found in record room and the same
is verified to find only Xerox copies of the relevant
documents and no original documents available in the file."
16. In view of the explanation offered by the Principal
Secretary to Government, Revenue Department in his affidavit
dated 19th April, 2024 and on perusal of the documents produced
along with the affidavit, I am of the opinion that the contentions
raised by the petitioner-Ashok M. in Writ Petition No.19999 of
2022 cannot be accepted. It is needless to state that the
petitioner-Ashok M. in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022, except
producing the Annexure-A series, no mutation register including
RTC extracts pertaining to the subject land is produced in the writ
petition. Neither the petitioner-Ashok M. nor his father had paid
tax in respect of the subject land. That apart, as the subject land
is a Government land and the Government had taken decision to
auction various lands along with the subject land as per letter
dated 28th/30th July, 2007 much before the order passed by this
Court in Writ Petition Nos.9550 of 2007 and 11426 of 2014 and in
those writ petitions, the respondent No.6-M/s. Umrah Developers
(successful bidder of the public auction in respect of the subject
land) has not been arraigned as a party, so also, as there is no
original record in the office of the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South
Taluk with regard to the grant of land made in favour of
Mariyappa (father of Sri. Ashok M.). I am opinion that the writ
petition filed by the son of alleged grantee, cannot be accepted.
On the other hand, the entire proceedings conducted by the
respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner in
RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 based on the Xerox copies, as the
respondent No.3 himself had observed in the order that the
original records are not available in the Office of the Tahsildar,
Bengaluru South Taluk. Therefore I am of the view that there is
no merit in writ petition No.19999 of 2022 and accordingly, same
is liable to be dismissed.
17. As the writ petition No.19999 of 2022 is liable to
dismissed as devoid of merits in terms of the observation made
above, holding that the proceedings dated 10th August, 2011
conducted by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy Commissioner
in RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 is based on the true copies and not on
the basis of original records as stated by the respondent No.3-
Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, the
petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers in Writ Petition No.28878 of
2023 has made out a case for interference. The explanation
offered by the petitioner-M/s. Umrah Developers with regard to
condonation of delay in challenging the order dated 10th August,
2011 passed by the respondent No.3-Special Deputy
Commissioner, is accepted as the petitioner-M/s Umrah
Developers is not a party to the writ petitions filed by Mariyappa
(father of petitioner in Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022). In that
view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the order
dated 10th August, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3-Special
Deputy Commissioner is without application of mind and thereby
held to be non-est and further passed in violation of principles of
natural justice. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition No.19999 of 2022 is dismissed;
2) Writ Petition No.28878 of 2023 is allowed;
3) Order dated 10th August, 2011 passed in
RRT(S)CR.236/2008-09 by the respondent No.3-
Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban
District is hereby set-aside.
SD/-
JUDGE
ARK
