Allowed

Sri Thammaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2022WP/33644/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed orders by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner that cancelled revenue entries and grants. The court held that RTS proceedings govern entry changes, not grant validity, which falls under a separate statutory scheme. It also noted the failure to inspect the land and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued quashing impugned orders; matter remanded to Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration after hearing stakeholders.

Sri Thammaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.33644 OF 2018(KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.THAMMAIAH, S/O HUCCHA RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD, R/AT SOPANAHALLI, HEBBURU HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK – 572 103.

¶9

SMT.GANGAMMA, W/O THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD, R/AT SOPANAHALLI, HEBBURU HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK – 572 103.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SMT.MANJULA D, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKURUDISTRICT TUMKURU – 572 103.

¶15

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKURU TALUK, TUMKURU – 572 103.

¶17

THE THASILDAR, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKURU – 572 103.

¶18

V GOPAL, S/O LATE VENKAT RAMAIAH, VINAYAKA NAGARA, B M ROAD, RAMANAGARA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BOMMANA KUPPA, HEBBURU HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK – 572 103.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI.M.B RYAKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.7.2014 PASSED BY R-3 VIDE ANNEX-Q AND IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.R.P.NO.27/2014-15 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.7.2018 VIDE ANNEX-R.

¶22

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court

¶25

seeking quashment of order dated 23.07.2014 (Annexure R) passed by the Respondent – Assistant Commissioner in RRT(A)(Thu)28/09-2010 whereby the Assistant Commissioner has directed the cancellation of

¶26

¶27

MR/4/2000-01 made on 11.10.2000. Petitioners Revision Petition filed under section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 having been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure R) they have laid a challenge thereto as well. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that her clients have been in the possession of the subject property pursuant to grant made decades ago; they have also dug a bore well and constructed buildings.

¶28

That being the position, in the guise of canceling the Revenue Entries, the very grant could not have been set at naught, more particularly when they belong to Scheduled Caste.

¶29

Learned AGA appears for the Official Respondent and a private counsel appears for the 5^th Respondent. Both they make submissions in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been structured. The 5^th Respondent has filed a

¶30

¶31

counter statement dated 30.07.2020 resisting the Writ Petition.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶33

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter, as under and for the following reasons:

¶34

a) The essential dispute in RTS proceedings should

¶35

relate to change of entries, as provided in the scheme of Sections 127 to 136 of the 1964 Act. As to whether the grants based on which such entries were made, cannot be the subject matter for the adjudication of their validity. In the guise of finding fault with particular entries in the revenue records, grants cannot be readily held as invalid and on that basis, the entries in the revenue records cannot be upset. The impugned orders mitigate against this statutory scheme and therefore are liable to be voided.

¶36

b) For the grant of land, or for the cancellation of the grant, the scheme of law is enacted under section

¶37

¶38

94A of the 1964 Act and the Land Revenue Rules, 1966 promulgated under the said Act. The scheme under which the claim for grant or cancellation is processed is miles away from the scheme governing the RTS proceedings that are discussed above. There cannot be an amalgamation of these schemes merely because officer processing the claims are arguably same. This aspect is overlooked both by the Assistant Commissioner & the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, there is an added error apparent on the face of the record.

¶39

c) Petitioners claim to be members of the Scheduled Caste, to whom allotment of land was made. They claim to be in possession of the land having constructed residential buildings and dug borewells therein for providing irrigation facility for growing the crops and other plantation. At least, this ought to have been got spot inspected before making orders of the kind as rightly argued by learned counsel for the Petitioners. This having not been done, yet another lacuna lurks in the impugned orders.

¶40

¶41

d) The contention advanced on behalf of the

¶42

Respondents that the Writ Court itself can undertake such an exercise without remanding the matter, is bit difficult to countenance. Matters of this kind are routinely treated by the Revenue officials and therefore, they are better suited for such an exercise.

¶43

In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders; matter is remitted to the portals of the Respondent – Deputy Commissioner for consideration afresh and in accordance with law, after hearing all the stakeholders.

¶44

No costs.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Bsv

Sri Thammaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thammaiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sannathippaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Rasolasab Vs the State of Karnataka

Halappa Vs the Duputy Commissioner

Sri Arokia Das Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rev Father a. Thomas Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Vasanth Kumar a N Vs Tahasildar