Allowed

Venkataraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2022WP/33546/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the suo motu initiation of revision proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, alleging alleged fraud in historical land entries and significant delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned revisionary proceedings, and all claims clouding the arguable title of the petitioners were removed. Costs allowed.

Venkataraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.33546 OF 2015 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VENKATARAJU, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶8

T RAJANNA, S/O THIPANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH R/AT MUTHKUR VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562114.

¶10

(THE PETITIONER NO.2 IS NOT CLAIMING SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT)

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, V V TOWERS, PODIUM BLOCK, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114.

¶18

GOVINDAPPA, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT YEARS, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -562114.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.V.SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.A.C.NAGARAJ & SRI.DEEPAK D.L, ADVOCATES FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-2/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN R.P.NO.107/2014-15 UNDER SECTION 136[3] OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964, AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION VIDE ANNEX-A.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The short grievance of the Petitioners is against the

¶25

suo motu initiation of Revision Proceedings in R.P.No.107/2014-15 by the Deputy Commissioner under

¶26

¶27

section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A. The initiation is apparently on the ground of fraud and fabrication of certain orders made by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 half a century ago i.e., on 1.1.1964. The purpose of the impugned proceedings is to invalidate the entries that were mutated in the name of Petitioners and their predecessors-in-title decades ago.

¶28

Learned counsel for the Petitioners urges two grounds for voiding of the proceedings in question:

¶29

(i) the suo motu revision cannot be initiated decades after the purported fraud & fabrication of documents, was suspected, absence of any statutory period of limitation u/s 136(3) o the 1964 Act; (ii) even otherwise, the purpose of RTS proceedings contemplated under Chapter XI of the 1964 Act, is alien to the purpose for which the present proceedings are initiated by the Deputy Commissioner. In

¶30

¶31

support of his contention, learned counsel for the

¶32

Petitioners heavily banks upon the decision of Apex Court in JOINT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT VS. D.NARSING RAO (2015) 3 SC 695 , and a Division Bench decision of this court in SRIMANMAHARAJA NIRANJANA JAGADGURU MALLIKARJUNA MURUGARAJENDRA MAHASWAMY VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ILR 1986 KAR 1059.

¶33

Learned HCGP appearing for the official Respondents vehemently opposes the Petition contending that the fraud & fabrication vitiate all proceedings be it governmental or ecclesiastical, said Lord Edward Coke centuries ago and that it has been the law in this land as well in view of S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY L.Rs vs. JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY L.Rs, AIR 1994 SC 853 . Once prima facie fraud becomes demonstrable, enquiry under section 136(3) is permissible and therefore, the pending enquiry should be permitted to culminate into some order

¶34

¶35

either this way or that, of course with the participation of all the stakeholders. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Partition Papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the purpose of RTS proceedings as contemplated under Chapter XI of the 1964 Act is to find out the prima facie tax payer and nothing beyond that. This exercise is of times also undertaken to ascertain as to on what basis i.e., instrument or event, the challenged entries in the revenue records are made, the purpose remains intact. If the entries are founded on the purported order of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner made way back in January 1964, no purpose would be served by undertaking an exercise to dig into the decades old matter as to whether such an order was made or not, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the Petitioners.

¶37

¶38

The judicial and quasi judicial process ordinarily

¶39

abhors delay since the law relating to limitations are treated as statutes of peace & repose in the larger interest of the society. Therefore, ordinarily, delayed proceedings are frowned upon. This view gains support from the decision of the Apex Court in JOINT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, supra wherein, para 31 reads asunder:

¶40

“To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority. ”

¶41

¶42

6. The submission of learned counsel for the

¶43

Petitioners that the rigour of delay becomes even more militant when the third party interest is created and that too at a price. Even this aspect of the matter is treated by the Apex Court in the paragraph reproduced above. Fraud and fabrication, voids every act, is too broad a proposition and cannot be invoked ignoring the pragmatics of daily life in a society. Such a norm evolved on foreign soil though by a legal apostle like Lord Coke cannot just be brought as it is and mindlessly applied here regardless of the possible undesirable consequences thereof. Therefore, whatever arguable rhetoric with which the said norm is frilled, needs to be removed keeping in view the equitable considerations. Again for this view, the above observations of the Apex Court lend credence.

¶44

Pursuant to registered sale deed dated

¶45

12.07.1971, even the entries vide M.R.Nos.60/1971-72,

¶46

¶47

16/1972-73 have been mutated in the revenue records that cannot be questioned at this length of time, especially when there is absolutely no material to assume that any fraud or forgery is perpetrated either by the Regrantee or the persons to whom he sold the land in question. Allegations of fraud & fabrication are a serious matter; proceedings of the kind can not be set in motion on suspicious. At least as a concession to the shortness of human life, the proceedings that are marred by enormous delay, cannot be permitted to continue.

¶48

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned proceedings and as a consequence, all claims that clouded the arguable title of the Petitioners are removed.

Costs made easy.

JUDGE

Sd/-

cbc

Venkataraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkataraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Arokia Das Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rev Father a. Thomas Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Thammaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt B R Bharathi Vs State of Karnataka

M P Prabhudas Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. N Padma Vs State of Karnataka