Allowed

Smt Saraswathamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/6560/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an enquiry notice issued under Section 136(3) KLR Act seeking grant records for land whose grant had already been upheld by the Court in prior writ, review and appellate rounds concerning phodi and durasti. The Court quashed the notice as violative of its directives and ordered disciplinary action against the Deputy Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Enquiry notice dated 8.1.2024 quashed; State directed to initiate enquiry against Deputy Commissioner; costs imposed on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 payable to petitioner within four weeks.

Smt Saraswathamma Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6560 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O LATE VENKATACHAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶9

2 . SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE VENKATACHAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶10

3 . SMT. SAVITHA D/O LATE VENKATACHAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶11

ALL ARE R/AT NO.81, H. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE 560 060.

¶12

....PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. CHOKKA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTS BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING

¶16

¶17

AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

2 . SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-II BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION 2^ND FLOOR BEHIDN KANDAYA BHAVANA K.G ROAD BANGALORE-560 009.

¶19

3 . TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KNDHAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 09.

¶20

….RESPONDENTS

¶21

(SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 SAND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A IMPUGNED ENQUIRY NOTICE DATED 08/01/2024, ISSUED BY THE R2 UNDER SECTION 136(3) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT 1964 IN RRT(2)(s) CR.18/2023-24 CALLING THE PETITIONERS TO PRODUCE THE GRANT RECORDS AND RELEVANT RECORDS IN SL. NO. 1 TO 9 IN RESPECT OF SY. NO. 21/28 MEASURING 2 ACRES, SITUATED AT DODDAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BY ALLOWING THE WP.

¶23

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.09.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

¶26

CAV ORDER

¶27

Captioned petition challenges the impugned

¶28

enquiry notice dated 8.1.2024 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short "KLR Act").

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

and the learned AGA for respondents.

¶31

3. The facts leading to the case:

¶32

The land in question was granted to one Lingaiah

¶33

in 1947-48 under Grow More Food Scheme. The grant was confirmed in 1961. The grantee sold the petition land to one Muniyellamma through registered sale deed dated 27.1.1970. The legal heirs of Muniyellamma in turn sold the property to one Venkatachar, husband of first petitioner through registered sale deed dated 7.3.2012. Pursuant to sale, the first petitioner's husband's name was

¶34

¶35

mutated to the RTC in 2012-13. The first petitioner's husband Venkatachar during his life time requested for conducting Phodi and Dhurasthi. Inspite of mandamus issued by this Court in earlier round of litigation, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner exercising the power under Section 136(3) of the Act has issued an enquiry notice. Under the enquiry notice, vide Annexure-A, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner intends to hold a fresh enquiry to ascertain whether the grant in favour of the original grantee is genuine.

¶36

Before this Court delves upon the enquiry notice issued by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, some material facts need to be looked into to ascertain whether the action of respondent No.2 in issuing enquiry notice is in blatant violation of the directives issued by this Court and also the findings regarding the genuineness of the grant.

¶37

¶38

Petitioner being aggrieved by inaction on

¶39

the part of the respondents in not conducting phodi and durasti, filed writ petition in W.P.7815/2021. This Court issued a mandamus thereby directing respondent 3 to 5 therein to carry out necessary phodi and durasti proceedings in the petition land. Paras 4 to 7 are extracted, which read as under:

¶40

"4. The petitioners submitted a representation on 16.09.2014 to carry out phodi and durasthi proceedings. Pursuant thereto, survey report was submitted by the Tahsildar' to the Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner. Despite which, no action has been taken.

¶41

5. The contentions of the petitioners are borne out from the documents produced.

¶42

6. Hence, a mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.3 and 5 to carry out necessary phodi and durasti proceedings as regards the land in Sy.No.21 of Doddamaranahalli Village, Thavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in accordance with law

¶43

¶44

within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶45

7. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 will act on a print out of the uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if so furnished by the petitioners, without waiting for certified copy thereof. If the said respondents have any doubt about the order, they may verify the contents of the order from the website of this Court and/or from the learned Additional Government Advocate."

¶46

Respondent/State feeling aggrieved by the order filed review petition in R.P.No.802/2022. Respondent/State argued in the review petition that the grant in favour of Lingaiah was a temporary grant and therefore, in absence of saguvali chit, no phodi and durasti proceedings can be carried out. This contention was out rightly rejected by the Co-Ordinate Bench. Paras 3 to 6 are relevant and are extracted, which reads as under:

¶47

"3. In this regard, Sri.Shivananda D.S., learned AGA places his reliance on the judgment of this Court in

¶48

¶49

W.P.No.5649/2012 dated 03.10.2012 to contend that when the documents are not available, a Committee which is constituted under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner of the District would have to take into consideration all the necessary documents which are available either as original or authenticated copies produced by the applicant and thereafter on necessary orders being passed by the said Committee, the podi and durasthi proceedings be carried out. It is on that basis, he submits that the positive mandamus which has been issued in the present matter directing the respondent to carry out podi and durasthi proceedings within a given time frame could not be implemented but he however submits that all the documents would be taken into consideration and necessary orders will be passed by the Committee given 8 weeks' time.

¶50

4. Sri. Chokkareddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would submit that all the documents have been furnished to the Assistant Commissioner as also to the Tahsildar. The grant is not a temporary grant. The grant though initially was temporary, it has been made permanent on 13.09.1958. A darkasth memorandum had been issued on the basis of a survey sketch which had been prepared. Thereafter, a saguvali chit had been issued in the year 1960-61, which has also been made available to the concerned authorities and as

¶51

¶52

such, there is nothing which prevents the respondents from doing the needful in terms of the directions which had been issued by this Court in WP No.7815/2021 vide order dated 16.09.2021. On this ground, he submits that the Review Petition is required to be dismissed.

¶53

5. Heard Sri. Shivananda D.S., learned AGA for review petitioner and Sri.Chokkreddy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the papers.

¶54

6. The only contention of Sri.Shivananda D.S., learned AGA is that the documents relating to the land are not available. A perusal of the objection statement filed to the present review petition indicates that all relevant documents have already been produced before this Court apart from having been furnished to the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar. If that be so, it does not now lie for the review petitioners to contend that there is only a temporary grant and/or the documents not being available and hence, the podi and durasthi proceedings cannot be carried out until the committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner were to pass necessary orders. In my considered opinion once, these documents are already available, the question of committee considering it, would not arise. These documents would have to be considered by the Review Petitioners and necessary action be

¶55

¶56

taken thereon by placing the matter before the concerned authorities for necessary orders. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Review Petition does not make out any ground for review in terms of Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure. As such, the Review Petition stands dismissed."

¶57

Having suffered an order at the hands of the Co-Ordinate Bench, respondent/State preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1200/2023. Same contentions were raised before the Division Bench by the State. Paras 2 to 4 are relevant and the same are extracted as under:

¶58

"2. Learned counsel appearing for the private Respondents opposes the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned judgement and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He points out that the grant of the land in question was made on 13.09.1958; a Durkhast Memorandum has been issued following the same and thereafter way back in the year 1960-61, a Saguvali Chit also came to be handed. That being the position, the vehement submission of learned Additional Government

¶59

¶60

Advocate that it is a case of temporary grant cannot be accepted, contends the counsel.

¶61

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we are broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the private Respondents. We note that there is no dispute as to the grant of the land. What is contended before us is as to being temporary. A grant that runs for more than six decades shuns the argument that it is temporary. Longevity of the disputed grant does not admit that it still retains the temporary character, even if we assume that the grant was made on temporary basis. At least as a concession to the shortness of human life, this reasoning gains support.

¶62

4. The above being said, we cannot turn a Nelson's Eye to the text of prayers made in the Writ Petition itself. What has been prayed is for a direction to consider the request of the Petitioners for conducting phodi & durasti of the subject-land in accordance with law. Therefore, learned Judge's direction should be construed as the one for the consideration of Petitioners' request for conducting phodi & durasti in accordance with law, as distinguished from a direction for carrying out phodi & durasti."

¶63

¶64

On meticulous examination of the extracted

¶65

portions of the findings recorded by the Co-Ordinate Bench and the Division Bench, more particularly, observations made by the Co-Ordinate Bench in review petition and the findings recorded by the Division Bench while dismissing the appeal of the State, the validity or otherwise of the grant in favour of Lingaiah is upheld. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal held that the grant that runs for more than six decades shuns the argument that it is temporary. This finding rendered by the Division Bench has given a quietus in regard to the genuineness of the grant.

¶66

Based on a careful examination of the

¶67

findings recorded by the Co-Ordinate Bench and the Division Bench, it is evident that the grant in favour of Lingaiah, which has been upheld as genuine, should no longer be questioned by the Revenue Authorities.

¶68

¶69

The action of Respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, in issuing an enquiry notice to the petitioner to furnish all documents related to the grant, is in blatant violation of the directives and findings of this Court. The Deputy Commissioner, being a party to the proceedings, is expected to adhere strictly to the Court's orders. His attempt to re-examine the genuineness of the grant, despite the matter being conclusively settled by the Co-Ordinate and Division Benches, constitutes a contemptuous disregard of judicial authority. This conduct demonstrates lack of competency and an unwarranted attempt to undermine the judgments of this Court, warranting an inquiry against Respondent No.2.

¶70

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Kerala¹ , has categorically held that any act by an executive

¶71

1 (2014) 12 SCC 696

¶72

¶73

authority that contravenes or disregards the directives issued by a Constitutional Court amounts to violation of the rule of law and undermines the judicial process. In light of this, the conduct of Respondent No. 2/Deputy Commissioner, who has issued an enquiry notice to re-examine the genuineness of the grant despite the clear directives of this Court upholding its validity, is a blatant misuse of authority. Such an act, carried out in disregard of the settled findings and conclusions rendered by both the CoOrdinate Bench and the Division Bench, not only contravenes the principles established by the Supreme Court but also demonstrates a willful defiance of the authority of the Constitutional Courts. This misuse of power, contrary to the findings of this Court, constitutes contempt and merits an inquiry against the Deputy Commissioner to hold him accountable for his actions.

¶74

¶75

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned

¶76

enquiry is not sustainable. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶79

(ii) The impugned enquiry notice dated

¶80

8.1.2024 is hereby quashed.

¶81

(iii) This Court hereby directs the State

¶82

Government to initiate an appropriate enquiry against Respondent No. 2/Deputy Commissioner, for his actions that are in blatant violation of the directives issued by this Court and for misusing his authority by attempting to re-examine the genuineness of the grant, which has already been conclusively settled by this Court.

¶83

¶84

imposed on respondent No.2/Deputy

¶85

Commissioner and respondent No.3/Tahsildar

¶86

payable to petitioner.

¶87

(v) The cost shall be paid and

¶88

compliance shall be reported to the Registry

¶89