Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Sri. H.S. Gajendra

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024WA/1019/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State appealed against setting aside of an order cancelling revenue entries over Peenya Plantation land made under Section 136(3). The Division Bench held that power under Section 136(3) extends only to verifying revenue entries and cannot be used to review or annul a 1965 Inams Abolition order. Writ appeal dismissed; contempt petition disposed with direction to comply within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; authorities directed to comply with the Single Judge's directions within six weeks; contempt petition and pending I.As. disposed as not surviving.

State of Karnataka Vs Sri. H.S. Gajendra — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶9

WRIT APPEAL No. 1019 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶10

C/W

¶11

CCC No. 196 OF 2024 (CIVIL)

¶12

IN WA No. 1019/2024

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶15

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. H.S. GAJENDRA, AGED 66 YEARS S/O LATE H.G. SURYANARAYANA,

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶22

SRI H. S. TULSIRAM, AGED 64 YEARS S/O LATE H. G. SURYANARAYANA,

¶23

SRI H. S. MAHENDRA, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O LATE H. G. SURYANARAYANA,

¶24

SRI H. S. SRIDHAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O LATE H. G. SURYANARAYANA.

¶25

SRI H. S. SOMANATH, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O LATE H. G. SURYANARAYANA,

¶26

ALL ARE R/AT No. 114, 1^ST C CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BANGALORE 560 085.

¶27

REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. P. R. K. RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI. P. R. PARUCHURI, PRESENTLY AT No. B-2, BHAGGYAM PRASAD, DOOR No. 20 AND 22, PAPANNASAM SIVAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 60 0004, TODAY AT BANGALORE.

¶28

H.N. NARAYANASA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE H.N. NAGENDRASA,

¶29

H. N. VINAYAKA, S/O LATE H. N. NAGENDRASA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS

¶30

7(a) SMT. K. RAJESHWARI, W/O LATE H.N. VINAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RA/T No. 6/1, TULASI THOTA,

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶32

BALEPET CROSS, BANGALORE 560 053.

¶33

7(b) SMT. SMITHA VINAYAKA, D/O LATE H. N. VINAYAKA, W/O G.V. DEEPAK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT No. 206/A, 14^TH MAIN, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 021.

¶34

7(c) SHRI. H. V. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O LATE H. N. VINAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT No. 6/1, 2^ND CROSS, THULASITHOTA, BALEPET CROSS, BANGALORE 560 053.

¶35

H. N. VASANTH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE H. N. NAGENDRASA,

¶36

ALL ARE RESIDING AT No. 6/1, 2^ND CROSS, THULASITHOTA, BALEPET CROSS, BANGALORE 560 053.

¶37

H. M. MURTHY, S/O LATE H.N. MUNESHWARASA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS

¶38

9(a) H.M. SULOCHANA, W/O LATE H.M. MARUTHY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶39

9(b) H. M. AMARANATH, S/O LATE H. N. MARUTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.5/34,

¶40

5^TH CROSS ROAD,

¶41

1^ST MAIN, BYATARAYANAPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 026.

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶43

H. M. GOPAL, S/O LATE H. N. MUNESHWARASA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT No. 314, 18^TH MAIN, OPPOSITE UDAYA SCHOOL, M. C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040.

¶44

H.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O LATE MUNESHWARASA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT No. 30, FLAT No. S-3, KANNAIAH RESIDENCY, 1^ST STAGE, 4^TH MAIN, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BANGALORE-560079.

¶45

H. M. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE MUNIESHWARASA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT No. 13, SHIVA PARAVATHI NILAYA 1^ST CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE 560 023.

¶46

H M NEELAKANTA S/O LATE MUNESHWARASA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT No. 30^TH CROSS CHOLARAPALYA, MAGADI ROAD BANGLAORE 560 023.

¶47

H G NAGARAJ S/O H. GANGADARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RESIDING AT No. 834, 17^TH F CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010.

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHAMMED TAHIR. A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI ASHOK BANNIDINNI, ADVOCATE FOR I.A.4/24)

¶50

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶51

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.06.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-38177/2011(KLR-RES) C/W 36906/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR).

¶52

IN CCC No. 196/2024

¶53

BETWEEN:

¶54

SRI H S GAJENDRA S/O LATE H G SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶55

H S TULSIRAM S/O LATE H G SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶56

H S MAHENDRA S/O LATE H G SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶57

H S SRIDHAR S/O LATE H G SURYANARAYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶58

H S SOMANATH S/O LATE H G SURAYNARAYANA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶59

ALL ARE R/AT No. 114, 1^ST C CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, BANAKSHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU 560085.

¶60

REPRSENTED BY THIER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI P. R. K. RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O P. R. PARUCHURI, PRESENTLY R/AT No. B-2, DOOR No. 20 AND 22,

¶61

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶62

PAPANASAM SIVAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600004.

¶63

...COMPLAINANTS

¶64

(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHAMMED TAHIR. A., ADVOCATE)

¶65

AND:

¶66

K A DAYANANDA, FATHER NAME NT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

¶67

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRSENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 560001.

¶68

...ACCUSED

¶69

(BY SRI KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R2)

¶70

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER/DIRECTION DATED 21.06.2022 IN WP No.38177/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE.

¶71

THIS WRIT APPEAL CONNECTED WITH CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶72

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶73

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶74

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶75

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶76

Heard learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Kiran V.Ron with learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. Niloufer Akbar for the appellants, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jayakumar S.Patil with learned advocates Mr. Varun Patil and Mr. A. Mohamad Tahir for respondent Nos.1 to 5 in Writ Appeal No1019 of 2024;

¶77

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jayakumar S.Patil with learned advocates Mr. Varun Patil and Mr. A. Mohamad Tahir for the complainants and learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Kiran V.Ron with learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.2-State in CCC No.196 of 2024.

¶78

This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the High Court Act, directed against the common order dated 21.06.2022 of Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.38177 of 2011 connected with Writ Petition No.36906 of 2016.

¶79

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶80

The Special Deputy Commissioner-Appellant No.2, based on the report of the Tahsildar in respect of Sy.No.2 of Peenya Plantation to an extent of 65 acres, initiated proceedings in exercise of power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'Act'). The Special Deputy Commissioner held that order of Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition passed in the year 1965 is illegal as the land was not an inam land. Appellant No.2 held the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition is without jurisdiction. Under the order impugned dated 26.04.2009, appellant No.2 cancelled the revenue entries and directed the Tahsildar to evict the occupants in the land in question.

¶81

Learned Single Judge set aside the order on the count that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Special Deputy Commissioner is without authority of law.

¶82

Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Kiron V.Ron with learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. Niloufer Akbar submits that the land in question is not inam land, but was a hiduvali land. The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition exercised to grant land without jurisdiction. It is submitted

¶83

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶84

that on a detailed enquiry, it is found that the order dated 24.05.1965 registering Sri H. Gangadharappa and others under Section 3(d)(i), (ii) and (iii) and Section 7 of the Mysuru (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short ‘Act of 1954’) is created one. The Peenya Plantation is not a "Jodi Inam" village, the provisions of Act of 1954 are not applicable. The mutation entries by virtue of the order dated 24.05.1965 are invalid in the eye of law. Lastly, it is submitted that the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition are on fabricated, concocted and created documents.

¶85

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jaykumar S.Patil with learned advocates Mr. Varun patil and Mr. Mohammed Tahir for respondent Nos.1 to 5 contends that Section 136(3) of the Act cannot be invoked to the nature of the issue involved. It is submitted that the exercise of jurisdiction under the impugned order is beyond the scope of Section 136(3) of the Act.

¶86

Considered the submissions of learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers.

¶87

The Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, in a report dated 18.09.2022 submitted to appellant No.2 stated that Sy.No.2 of

¶88

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶89

Peenya Plantation to an extent of 65 acres, the entries made in the names of Sri H. Gangadharappa, Sri H.G. Suryanarayana, Sri H.G.Satyanarayana, Sri H.G.Rangaraju and Sri H.G.Nagaraju are illegal, the same is to be cancelled and land has to be resumed to Government. It is stated by the Tahsildar that the land granted under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act is not an inam land. The revenue entry in the names of individuals is illegal. The report has referred to change of revenue entries in the record as per M.R. No.21/1965-66 upon grant made by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition 24.05.1965.

¶90

Appellant No.2, based on the report of the Tahsildar, has initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act. The proceedings are concluded by holding that grant made in 1965 and revenue entries thereon are based on the created documents and without authority as exercised by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition.

¶91

Before examining the correctness of the finding on the genuineness of the grant in the year 1965, the competence of appellant No.2 in invoking Section 136(3) of the Act is to be examined. Section 136(3) of the Act would confer jurisdiction to

¶92

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶93

verify the validity of entries in the revenue records and the prescribed Rules. Section 136(3) of the Act cannot be exercised for any other purpose.

¶94

Appellant No.2, while exercising Section 136(3) of the Act has concluded that the grant made by Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition dated 24.05.1965 is not legal. Appellant No.2 has exceeded jurisdiction in holding as such and is not legally sustainable for more than one reason. Firstly, the order dated 24.05.1965 cannot be reviewed, altered or modified under Section 136(3) of the Act. Secondly, Section 136(3) of the Act is silent on declaring the proceedings under the Act of 1954 as illegal. Thirdly, decisions made under an enactment cannot be altered or adjudicated invoking the powers conferred under another enactment unless law expressly provides such exercise. No such provision is pointed out to the Court.

¶95

Learned Single Judge on consideration of the above aspects, has reached to the conclusion as under,

¶96

"6. ... the Special Deputy Commissioner has affirmed that there was an order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition dated 24.05.1965 and pursuant to the said order, an order of mutation was made vide M.R. No.21/1965-66. It is also not in

¶97

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:40768-DB WA No. 1019 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 196 of 2024

¶98

dispute that the revenue entries right from the year 1965-66 reflect the name of the recipient of the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition and not the persons who acquired the title thereof from him.

¶99

It is, therefore, clear that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to conclude that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition dated 24.05.1965 was incorrect while considering the regularity or irregularity of the entries in the revenue records. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.."

¶100

The Court, on perusal of the relevant provisions and the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, no merit is found to take a different view, as opined by the learned Single Judge. The conclusion reached by learned Single Judge is justified and needs no interference. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.

¶101

The order impugned in the writ appeal is brought in contempt for its non-compliance and disobedience. Having regard to the order brought in contempt is upheld, nothing survives to be considered in the contempt petition, except to directing the authorities to comply the directions as directed by the learned Single Judge within six weeks from the date of service of this order.

¶102