Quashed

The Principal Secretary to Govt v. M Abbayya @ Abbanna

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2021WP/11793/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an impugned order passed in suo moto proceedings under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act directing mutation of revenue entries. The Court held that the legal authority failed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the Tahsildar to place essential records regarding the genuineness of the land grant before expressing an opinion, and the matter must be reconsidered in the light of t

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 2.9.2016 in No.RRT[2][E]CR.20/2016-17 is quashed and proceedings are restored for reconsideration without further notice.

The Principal Secretary to Govt Vs M Abbayya @ Abbanna — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 11793/2019 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 1.

¶8

THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K R PURAM BENGALURU.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(By Sri. A.R. SRINIVAS., AGA)

¶11

AND :

¶12

M. ABBAYYA @ ABBANNA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)

¶13

A. SHRI C A KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE ABBAYAY @ ABBANNA,

¶14

B. SHRI C A SRINIVASA S/O LATE ABBAYYA @ ABBANNA

¶15

C. SHRI C A MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE ABBAYYA @ ABBANNA

¶16

¶17

ALL ARE RESIDING AT D NO.131, NEAR BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 067.

¶18

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER -I BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU DISTRICT URBAN D.C. OFFICE CAMPUS K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By SRI.NARAYANA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A-C); NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2021)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2016 IN CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-I, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DVSON, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1[A-C] are heard for final disposal, and in the facts and circumstances of the case notice to the respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶26

The State has impugned the order dated 2.9.2016 in No.RRT[2][E]CR.20/2016-17 on the file of

¶27

the Special Deputy Commissioner-I, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru District, [for short 'the Special Deputy Commissioner']. In these suo moto proceedings initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents under Section 136[3] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short 'the KLR Act'], the Special Deputy Commissioner has directed the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk to mutate the revenue entries for the land measuring 25 guntas in Sy.No.33 of Channasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk [the

¶28

¶29

subject land] in the names of the contesting

¶30

respondents.

¶31

The Special Deputy Commissioner has

¶32

opined that it is evident from the perusal of the records available that the subject land is granted to Sri. Abbanna @ Abbayya son of Munidasappa on 25.03.1978 in the proceedings No.LND.7/78-79, the saguvali chit is issued to him on 30.03.1979 in SC No.14/78-79-Block-III and the revenue records for the subject land stand in the name of the aforesaid Abbanna @ Abbayya until the year 2001-02 commencing right from the year 1980-81. The Special Deputy Commissioner has also found that the revenue entries in the RTC for the subject land as 'gundu thopu' after the years 2001-02 does not stand to reason in the light of the grant in favour of Sri. Abbanna @ Abbayya.

¶33

¶34

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶35

arguing in support of the petition, submits that the jurisdictional Tahsildar did not have a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the alteration of the revenue entries for the subject land at the instance of the contesting respondents and on this short ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained. He relies upon the order sheet in the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner to submit that the notice was issued on 8.8.2016 to the jurisdictional Tahsildar after suo moto registeration of the proceedings at the instance of Abbanna @ Abbaiah. Within seventeen days therefrom, the Special Deputy Commissioner has reserved the matter for orders, and orders are pronounced on 2.9.2016.

¶36

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶37

relies upon the grant certificates [Annexures-B and C respectively] to bolster his submission that certain

¶38

¶39

records had to be examined by the Special Deputy Commissioner before concluding on the grant of the subject land in favour of Sri Abbbanna @ Abbayya and the impermissibility of the revenue entries as ‘gundu thopu”. He submits that two saguvali chits , dated differently, are relied upon by the petitioners to assert that Sri. Abbayya @ Abbanna is granted the subject land but there could not have been two s aguvali chits for the subject land in favour of Sri Abbayya @ Abanna.

¶40

The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits relying upon Annexure-H, which is enclosed to the statement of objections filed on their behalf, that the details of the grant of the subject land to Sri. Abbayya @ Abbanna are entered in the relevant Register of Grants and there cannot be any dispute about the genuineness of the grant. He also relies upon the RTC for the years prior to 2000-01 to state that the revenue records were updated in favour of Sri. Abbayya

¶41

¶42

@ Abbanna after the grant, but the jurisdictional Tahsildar at the time of computerization of the RTC, without a speaking order has shown the subject land as 'gundu thopu'. Therefore, the Special Deputy Commissioner has rightly concluded that the grant of the subject land in favour of Sri. Abbayya @ Abbanna is established. The learned counsel relies upon certain photographs attached to the statement of objections to the petition to assert that the contesting respondents are in possession of the subject land with long standing trees and construction.

¶43

The learned counsel also relies upon a decision of this Court in ' M.N. Venkateshaiah v. State of Karnataka , represented by its Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department and Others '¹ to contend that the question of genuineness of the grant cannot be examined under Section 136[3] of the KLR Act and if

¶44

1 ILR 2005 KAR 5084

¶45

¶46

there is any question about the grant, that could only be examined by the Deputy Commissioner in a properly instituted proceeding under Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969.

¶47

However, in the present case, the Special Deputy Commissioner, in a suo moto proceedings initiated under Section 136 of the KLR Act at the instance of the contesting respondents has arrived at a finding that that available records establish that Sri Abbanna @ Abbayya is granted the subject land and therefore, the revenue entries for the subject land have to be restored in favour of the contesting respondents.

¶48

It is undisputed that whenever there is any doubt about the grant for the purposes of durasth and phodi of the land assertedly granted, the Register of Grant and the Register of Issuance of Grant Certificate [ Saguvali Chit ] are examined to ascertain the genuineness and in fact necessary circulars are issued

¶49

¶50

for rebuilding the records and conducting durasth and phodi if the reference to a grant is found in any one of the two Registers. A useful reference could be made to the circular bearing No.KAN.E.08.LGP.2016 dated 20.06.2016. But, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Special Deputy Commissioner in arriving at the conclusion as aforesaid has perused either the records or the Register of Issuance of Grant Certificate. It would be imperative for the Special Deputy Commissioner to examine the aforesaid Registers before an opinion is recorded on the genuineness or otherwise of the grant and the jurisdictional Tahsildar must be called upon to place such records. If the necessary entries in such Registers are found genuine, the rights under the grant cannot be denied unless the grant is annulled in the manner provided under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969.

¶51

¶52

The Special Deputy Commissioner has

¶53

initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 136[3] of the KLR Act at the instance of the contesting respondents and notice is issued to the Tahasildhar on 8.8.2016; within seventeen days therefrom, the proceedings are reserved for orders and on 2.9.2016, the impugned order is made. This Court is of the considered view that in the aforesaid circumstances, the Special Deputy Commissioner should have granted reasonable opportunity to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, to place on record all documents, including the Register of Grant and Register of Issuance of Grant Certificate [ Saguvali Chit ] before expressing any opinion on the genuineness of the grant in favour of Sri. Abbayya @ Abbanna.

¶54

As such, leaving all questions open to be reconsidered by the Special Deputy Commissioner, the impugned order dated 2.9.2016 in

¶55

¶56

No.RRT[2][E]CR.20/2016-17 is quashed and these proceedings are restored for reconsideration. The Special Deputy Commissioner-I, Bengaluru North SubDivision, Bengaluru District shall reinstate the proceedings on board for reconsideration in the light of the observations of this Court and the contesting respondents, without further notice, shall appear before the Special Deputy Commissioner on 18.08.2021.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

AN/-

The Principal Secretary to Govt v. M Abbayya @ Abbanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Secretary to Govt v. M Abbayya @ Abbanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Thaslima Banu Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Gangappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy K M Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Tulasa Vs State of Karnataka

G T Girish Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Munirathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka