Karnataka High Court
Shri D.G. Chnagalarayappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36576
WP No. 14601 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 14601 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. D. G. CHNAGALARAYAPPA,
S/O LATE GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SURAKUNTE VILLAGE,
NAGALI POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
Digitally VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01.
signed by
YAMUNA K L
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
Location:
High Court MULBAGAL TALUK,
of Karnataka KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE, THIS HONBLE COURT
BE PLEASED TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND TO ISSUE AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36576
WP No. 14601 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking mandamus
against respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 24.03.2023 and conduct phodi and
durasti of petition land measuring 3 acres.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned AGA for the respondents-State.
3. The subject matter of the petition land is an
agricultural land bearing Sy.No.118 measuring 3 acres.
The petitioner's father purchased 1 1/2 acres of land under
a registered sale deed dated 06.07.1953, as per
Annexure-A. In addition to that, the petitioner's father also
purchased the remaining 1 1/2 acres of land in Sy.No.118
in the name of the petitioner's brother Munivenkatappa
under a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1978 as per
NC: 2024:KHC:36576
Annexure-B. Mutations were subsequently effected and
the petitioner's father's and brother's names were entered
in RTC. Based on oral partition between the petitioner and
his family members, the petition land was allotted to the
petitioner's share as per Annexure-C.
4. The petitioner contends that the properties are
standing in the name of the petitioner's family, reflecting
the extent of possession as 3 acres in Sy.No.118. By way
of inheritance, the petitioner's name was mutated to the
RTC. The petitioner is aggrieved by the deletion of his
name from RTC. The petitioner's name is deleted from the
RTC by the revenue authorities on the premises that they
intended to consolidate and mutate the names of all joint
owners in Sy.No.118, which totally measures 45 acres 13
guntas, which includes 5 acres 7 guntas of A kharab and
30 guntas of B kharab land. The petitioner submitted a
representation to respondent No.2 requesting to conduct
survey and subdivide the petitioner's extent measuring 3
acres and assign an independent sub-survey number and
NC: 2024:KHC:36576
accordingly issue an RTC in that regard. The petitioner is
aggrieved by the non-consideration of his representation.
5. Learned AGA, however, contends that the phodi
cannot commence without holding an enquiry as to
whether there is a grant in favour of the petitioner's
vendor. Learned AGA would point out that these sale
deeds obtained by the petitioner's father are based on
fraudulent grants and therefore, unless an enquiry is
conducted and the genuineness of the grant is decided,
the petitioner cannot seek phodi and durasti in respect of
land bearing Sy.No.118 measuring 3 acres.
6. The petitioner's ancestor acquired title way
back in 1953 and 1978 under two separate sale deeds.
The petitioner's ancestors names were reflected in RTC at
an undisputed point of time. The co-ordinate bench of this
Court in W.P.No.13029/2013 in the case of Krishnappa vs.
State of Karnataka while examining the Deputy
Commissioner's suo moto powers to enquiry into
genuineness of grant under Section 136(3) of the
NC: 2024:KHC:36576
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'Act'), was
of the view that the Deputy Commissioner's right to hold
an enquiry under Section 136(3) of the Act when there is
delay of 50 years cannot be entertained. The co-ordinate
bench of this Court was dealing with the right of a grantee
seeking resumption of land under the provisions of the
PTCL Act.
7. Per contra, learned AGA has placed reliance on
the judgment rendered by the division bench of this Court
in the case of Puttamma and others vs. The Deputy
Commissioner, Shimoga and others in W.A.No.436/2010
dated 08.01.2014. Wherein the division bench has held
that no limitation is prescribed when the grant is obtained
on false document and fraudulent representation.
8. Having given my anxious consideration to the
law laid down by the co-ordinate bench and division bench
of this Court, the respondent authorities cannot decline to
conduct surveys based on title documents. The Deputy
Commissioner, however, can independently hold an
NC: 2024:KHC:36576
enquiry to ascertain genuineness of grant. While doing so,
the Deputy Commissioner shall take cognizance of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Chhedilala Yadav and others vs. Hari Kishore Yadav, dead
by his legal representatives and others reported in (2018)
12 SCC 527. The petitioner, as a transferee, has acquired
title pursuant to a registered sale deed obtained by the
petitioner's father. The two sale deeds obtained by the
petitioner's father date to 1953 and 1978. The petitioner's
family asserts that they are in exclusive possession and
enjoyment as absolute owners. All these significant details
have to be taken into cognizance if at all the Deputy
Commissioner intends to hold an enquiry under Section
136(3) of the Act. The respondents on the ground that the
grant is suspicious, cannot squat indefinitely over the
representation submitted by the petitioner. The
respondents are bound to effect phodi proceedings by
considering the petitioner's representation. Enquiry, if any,
has to be done independently and the survey cannot be
postponed indefinitely on the premise that they intend to
NC: 2024:KHC:36576
hold an enquiry to ascertain whether there is a grant or
not.
9. In the light of discussion made supra, this Court
passes the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed;
ii. Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to
consider the petitioner's representation and
conduct survey by taking note of title
documents furnished by the petitioner
along with the application;
iii. This exercise shall be completed within a
period of six months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
