Allowed

Sri Thimmarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2022WP/4506/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order where the Special Deputy Commissioner exercised suo motu revisional powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Court held that revenue entries based on registered instruments cannot be challenged via revenue revision without a prior appeal by the State, and title disputes must go to the Civil Court. The writ petitions were allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-II invoking suo motu powers is quashed and set aside.

Sri Thimmarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 4506 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 4510 OF 2022(KLR-RES)

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 8228 OF 2022 (KLR-RES

¶11

IN W.P. NO.4506/2022

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA

¶14

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶15

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

1a. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA

¶17

AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS

¶18

R/AT: #102/1, KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE DOMMASANDRA POST

¶19

SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.

¶20

1b. SRI. VENAPPA

¶21

S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶22

R/AT: #102/1, KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE

¶23

DOMMASANDRA POST SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.

¶24

1c. SMT. PUTTAMMA

¶25

D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA

¶26

W/O SRINIVASA REDDY

¶27

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶28

¶29

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022

¶30

R/AT: #174, ALI BOMMASANDRA MUTHANALLUR, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560099.

¶31

1d. SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT: #23, CHICKATHIMMASANDRA MUTHANALLUR, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560099.

¶32

1e. SMT. VINODAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT: #102/1, KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE DOMMASANDRA POST SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.

¶33

SMT. THAYMMA W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE, BEGURU HOBLI, BENGALURU-560068

¶34

SRI. VENKATESH REDDY S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099

¶35

SRI. S KRISHNA REDDY S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099

¶36

¶37

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022

¶38

SRI. S RAVI S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099

¶39

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099

¶40

SRI. S SRINIVASA REDDY S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099

¶41

SRI. S NANJUNDA REDDY S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099

¶42

SRI. C KUMAR S/O CHINNAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099

¶43

…PETITIONERS

¶44

(BY SRI. PRAKASH B N, ADVOCATE)

¶45

¶46

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022

¶47

AND:

¶48

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶49

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-II BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560001

¶50

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK-562106 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶51

SRI. K M RAJU S/O MADDANAGIRIYAIAH, @ MADANAGIRIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.156, 2^ND CROSS, BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068

¶52

SRI. M NAGARAJU S/O MADDANAGIRIYAIAH, @ MADANAGIRIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.156, 2^ND CROSS, BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068

¶53

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, DOMMASANDRA POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125

¶54

¶55

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022

¶56

SRI. A S NAGARAJU S/O SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT ATTILAHALLI VILLAGE, HETHOOR HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶57

SRI SRINIVASA REDDY S/O G PAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT GOPASANDRA VILLAGE, MUTHANALUR POST, SARJPAURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562106

¶58

SRI SHIVARAM REDDY S/O G PAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT GOPASANDRA VILLAGE, MUTHANALLUR POST, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562106

¶59

…RESPONDENTS

¶60

(BY SRI.SREEVATSA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. R.V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 R6 TO R9 D/W V/O DTD. 28.02.2022)

¶61

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 10.02.2022 PASSED BY THE R-2 / SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RRT(2) (A) CR-16/202122 (PRODUCED AT ANNX-A) AND ETC.

¶62

¶63

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 IN W. P. NO. 4510/2022

¶64

BETWEEN:

¶65

SRI. A S NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O SUBBEGOWDA, R/AT NO.102, AMBRIANCE DRIVE BURR RIDGE, I.L.60527, U.S.A.

¶66

REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER H.M. TULASI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O H.S. MALLEGOWDA R/AT NO.568, 2^ND CROSS MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR SAKALESHPURA

¶67

…PETITIONER

¶68

(BY SRI. G.MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶69

AND:

¶70

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶71

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK-562106 ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL-562107.

¶72

K M RAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O MADDANAGIRIYAIAH, @ MADANAGIRIYAIAH, R/AT NO.156, 2^ND CROSS, BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068

¶73

SRI. K. M. NAGARAJ S/O MADDAGIRIAYYAH, @ MADANAGIRIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.156, 2^ND CROSS,

¶74

¶75

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068

¶76

…RESPONDENTS

¶77

(BY SRI.SREEVATSA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. R.V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 R6 TO R9 D/W V/O DTD. 28.02.2022)

¶78

¶79

IN W.P. NO. 8228/2022

¶80

BETWEEN:

¶81

SHIVARAMA REDDY S/O LATE PAPA REDDY AGED 58 YEARS, R/A. GOPASANDRA VILLAGE MUTHANALLUR POST SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562106.

¶82

(BY SRI. B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶83

AND:

¶84

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001

¶85

.…PETITIONER

¶86

¶87

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶88

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-II BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560009

¶89

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009

¶90

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK-562106 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶91

SRI. K M RAJU S/O MADDANAGIRIYAIAH, @ MADANAGIRIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.156, 2^ND CROSS, BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068

¶92

SRI. M NAGARAJU S/O MADDANAGIRIYAIAH, @ MADANAGIRIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.156, 2^ND CROSS, BANDEPALYA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068

¶93

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, DOMMASANDRA POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125

¶94

SRI. A S NAGARAJU

¶95

¶96

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022

¶97

S/O SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT ATTILAHALLI VILLAGE, HETHOOR HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶98

SRI SRINIVASA REDDY S/O G PAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT GOPASANDRA VILLAGE, MUTHANALUR POST, SARJPAURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562106

¶99

SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA

¶100

SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRS

¶101

10a. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS

¶102

10b. SRI. VENAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT: #102/1, KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE DOMMASANDRA POST SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.

¶103

10c. SMT. PUTTAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT: #174, ALI BOMMASANDRA MUTHANALLUR, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560099.

¶104

10 -

¶105

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022

¶106

10d. SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT: #23, CHIKKATHIMMASANDRA MUTHANALLUR, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560099.

¶107

10e. SMT. VINODAMMA D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT: #102/1, KOMMASANDRA VILLAGE DOMMASANDRA POST SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.

¶108

SMT. THAYMMA W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE, BEGURU HOBLI, BENGALURU-560068

¶109

SRI. VENKATESH REDDY S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶110

SRI. S KRISHNA REDDY S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶111

SRI. S. RAVI S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶112

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O SHAMAIAH REDDY,

¶113

SRI. S. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶114

SRI. S NANJUNDA REDDY S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶115

11 -

¶116

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022

¶117

R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099

¶118

SRI. C KUMAR S/O CHINNAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 18 ARE R/AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE & POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560099

¶119

…RESPONDENTS

¶120

(BY SRI.SREEVATSA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. R.V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5, R6 & R8 SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶121

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2022 PASSED BY THE R2/SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

¶122

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

¶123

ORDER

¶124

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶125

The writ petitioners in all these petitions are aggrieved by a common order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bengaluru South Sub-Division,

¶126

12 -

¶127

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 Bengaluru District, Bengaluru in case No.RRT (2)(A) CR16/2021-22 dated 10.02.2022.

¶128

The contesting respondents Sri K.M.Raju and M.Nagaraju, initially approached the Assistant

¶129

Commissioner in R.A.(A) No.489/2021 invoking the appeal provision provided under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act' for short) challenging the revenue entries made in M.R.Nos.7/1957-58, 3/1965-66 etc., in respect of 4 acres 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.79 regarding M.R.No.5/2003-04 etc., and in respect of Sy.No.49 measuring 18 acres 14 guntas. However, before the Assistant Commissioner could pass any orders, the contesting respondents approached the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bengaluru District, in RRT No.(2) (A) CR-16/2021-22, seeking suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act, to conduct an enquiry regarding the genuinity of the mutation entries and also for cancellation of various sale deeds in respect of the said lands.

¶130

13 -

¶131

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 3. Learned Counsels for the petitioners in all these

¶132

writ petitions have vehemently contended that on the face of it, it is clear that the appeal provisions contained in Section 136(2) or the revisional powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act, could not have been invoked by the authorities to set aside a revenue entry which has stood in the records for many decades.

¶133

Learned Counsels would submit that it is the contention of the contesting respondents that they claim through one Sri V.Shivaramaiah who is said to have been granted 22 acres and 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.49 and Sy.No.79 of Kagalipura Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and since then, the original grantee and thereafter the contesting Respondents herein have been in continuous possession of the granted lands. However, the learned Counsels would submit that admittedly neither the name of the original grantee nor his successors were entered in the land revenue records. On the other hand, the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question having acquired the same under

¶134

14 -

¶135

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 registered sale deeds. The original transaction to which the

¶136

petitioners trace their title commenced on 15.10.1910. Therefore, having regard to the provisions contained under Section 128 of the Act, the purchasers have got their names entered in the land revenue records on the strength of the registered instruments. That being the position, neither the contesting respondents could have moved the revenue authorities to set aside mutation entries which have stood in the records for decades together on the strength of registered instruments and neither could the revenue authorities initiate such proceedings even under the suo motu powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act.

¶137

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Sreevatsa

¶138

appearing for the contesting respondents would submit

¶139

that it is clear from the first document of the year 1910 that the seller has clearly stated in the recitals of the sale deed that he had not acquired title over the land in question and it was only an assurance given to the seller to the purchaser that they may get their names entered in

¶140

15 -

¶141

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 the land revenue records and the seller would ensure that

¶142

grant is made in their favour. In other words, learned Senior Counsel seeks to contend that when the original seller himself did not have any right to dispose of the properties, no right would flow to the purchasers under the registered sale deeds. Moreover, it is sought to be contended that the contesting Respondents have been in possession and their possession was never disturbed even by the petitioners since the petitioners never established their right over the lands in question by putting up any construction on the lands or getting the phodi and durasth done consequent to the registered instruments and entered all their names in the revenue records. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit while taking this Court through the RTCs that the name of the Government is shown in Column No.6 and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has given a finding that the lands being Government lands, it is within the powers of the revenue authorities to delete the names of unauthorized persons from the RTCs.

¶143

16 -

¶144

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 6. Having heard the learned Counsels for the

¶145

petitioners, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents, learned AGA and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the petitioners are challenging the authority of the Special Deputy Commissioner in passing the impugned order invoking Section 136(3) of the Act. This Court has noticed in several decisions that a period of 60 days is provided under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act, to challenge an entry made in the land revenue records. Similarly, this Court has also held that the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to invoke suo motu powers invoking sub-section (3) of Section 136 also requires to be done within a reasonable time. In fact, this Court has held that in many such cases where action is sought to be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 136(3) of the Act, stating that the land belongs to the Government, that unless there is an appeal filed by the State Government invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioners should not venture to invoke the suo motu

¶146

17 -

¶147

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 powers. This Court has held that the revenue authorities are not custodians of the Government lands. Government lands belong to the State and the revenue authorities functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, are only custodians of the revenue records and not the Government lands. Therefore, it was held that even if the State is of the opinion that there has been encroachment on Government lands or the names of unauthorized persons have been entered in the land revenue records in respect of Government lands, then the Government viz., Secretary to Revenue Department is required to move an appeal or revision to get the mutation entries removed from the land revenue records. Unless and until such requisition or appeal is filed by the concerned Government official, the revenue authorities should not venture to invoke the suo motu powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act.

¶148

In the present case, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner at the instance of the contesting

¶149

18 -

¶150

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 respondents herein. It is the contention of the contesting

¶151

respondents that they are the owners of the lands in question. However, in order to substantiate their contention that the contesting respondents are the owners, they are unable to produce any document whereby the revenue authorities have recognized the contesting respondents as owners of the land and their names being entered in the land revenue records. Ultimately, in these litigations, it is the title dispute that is the real dispute and therefore, time and again this Court

¶152

has held that the aggrieved parties are required to approach the competent Civil Court, get a declaration of their title and the revenue entries would automatically follow. During the course of these proceedings, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents also drew the attention of this Court to Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, to contend that there is a legal presumption provided in Section 5(3) of the Act, stating that it shall be

¶153

19 -

¶154

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 presumed by the authority that any person in possession

¶155

of a granted land viz., lands granted to a person belonging

¶156

to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community shall be presumed to be in possession without authority of law. It shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved that such person has acquired the land by transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Nevertheless, if the contesting respondents are of the opinion that the petitioners can be evicted by invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act, the contesting respondents are free to invoke the provisions in accordance with law.

¶157

Having regard to all these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 136(3) of the Act, cannot be sustained. The revenue entries commencing from M.R.No.7/1957-58 till the latest i.e., M.R.No.3/2019-20 and M.R.No.T2/2021-22 have stood on record on the strength of registered instruments. These entries have been made in the land records in accordance with the powers conferred under Section 128 of the Act.

¶158

20 -

¶159

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 Therefore, the same cannot be interfered by the Special Deputy Commissioner at the instance of the contesting respondents or of the State Government without following the due process of law. Needless to observe that this Court is concerned only with the revenue entries made in the land revenue records since the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is regarding the revenue entries. This Court has said nothing about the possession of the lands in question or the title. It is for the aggrieved party to approach the competent Civil Court, get a declaration of title and accordingly the land revenue entries shall follow.

¶160

The Assistant Commissioner is said to have passed an order in R.A.(A): 489/2021 on 13.12.2021 subsequent to the filing of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents sought for leave of this Court to contest the matter challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner

¶161

21 -

¶162

WP No. 4506 of 2022 C/W WP No. 4510 of 2022, WP No. 8228 of 2022 invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Act.

¶163

In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the observations made hereinabove, it would be

¶164

a futile exercise to allow the contesting respondents to once again invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act.

¶165

Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bengaluru South SubDivision, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, in proceeding bearing No.RRT No.(2) (A) CR-16/2021-22 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶166

Ordered accordingly.

¶167

Sd/JUDGE

¶168

JT/CT:JL

Sri Thimmarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thimmarayappa 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. T Keshavegowda Vs State of Karnataka

G Balakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a N Santhoshkumar Vs State of Karnataka

A S Nagaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shivarama Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mumtaz Baji Vs the State of Karnataka