Sri.R. Chandra Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. R. CHANDRA S/O. SRI. D. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE, DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD, K R PURAM POST, BENGALURU-560036.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

¶15

THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT AND DESIGNATED D D L R, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

¶16

2

¶17

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶18

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHA DEVAPURA RANGE, BENGALURU-560048, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶19

SRI. MACHI MADIWALARA KSHEMABHIVRUDHI SANGHA (R), NO.26, BASAVANAPURA DHOBIGHAT, NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, SWATHANTRA NAGAR, VEERGO POST, BENGALURU -560049.

¶20

..RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. N.R.JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. M.L.GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. HARSHA AND PRUTHVI RAJ, ADVOCATES FOR R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.5.2009 IN NO.LND(POO)CR.47/07-08 AND 21/07-08 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E; QUASH THE ORDER DTD 1.9.2023 PASSED BY THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DESIGNATED DDLR, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.04.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

3

WP NO.3148 of 2024

C.A.V. ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶29

i. Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing the order dated 13.5.2009 in No.LND(Poo)CR:47/07-08 and 21/07-08 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E.

¶30

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing the order dated 1.9.2023 passed by the Technical Assistant to Deputy Commissioner & Designated D D L R, office of Deputy Commissioner, Kandaya Bhavan, Bengaluru 560 009 a copy of which is produced at Annexure-R.

¶31

iii. Grant such other reliefs, as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and

¶32

4

¶33

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶34

circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and equity.

¶35

Petitioner is asserting to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 4 acres 18 guntas of land including 4 acres 9 guntas of kharab land in Sy.No.26/1. Petitioner traces title based on registered sale deed dated 25.11.2013 obtained from erstwhile owner. Petitioner also claims that originally land to an extent of 5 acres and 4 acres 9 guntas of kharab land was granted to R.K.Muthukrishna in Sy.No.26 of Basavanapura, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South vide order dated 30.08.1966. To substantiate the grant and issuance of saguvali chit, petitioner has placed reliance on these documents which are evidenced at Annexures-B and C respectively. Petitioner further claims that granted land was subjected to durasth and the extent was corrected as 4 acres 28 guntas instead of 5 acres along with 4 acres 9 guntas kharab land

¶36

5

¶37

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶38

and the land granted to petitioner's vendor was assigned a

¶39

fresh Sy.No.26/1 which is evidenced at Annexure-D.

¶40

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 13.05.2009, whereby an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.26 was allotted in favour of respondent No.4 – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) through an Official Memorandum dated 08.07.2009. The petitioner contends that this land formed part of the property in his lawful possession and ownership. In order to challenge this allotment, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, seeking to establish his title and possession over the land in question as well as other adjoining lands. Pursuant to the said revision, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, who upon detailed consideration of the records and materials available, passed an order dated 24.11.2015, produced as Annexure-G. In the said order, the Deputy Commissioner

¶41

6

¶42

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶43

unequivocally held that the lands claimed and held by the petitioner were not government lands, thereby recognizing the petitioner's rights over the said property.

¶44

The petitioner further asserts that, following the Deputy Commissioner's order, the jurisdictional Tahsildar initiated appropriate steps by addressing a communication to the Assistant Director of Land Records, requesting a formal survey of the 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Survey No.26 which had been previously granted to BBMP. While this process was underway, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P. No. 22154/2021 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the concerned authorities to remove the illegal entries made in the "Sarkari Beedu Banjara" column in the revenue records such as the Karda and Pakka book, which adversely affected his title. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 23.12.2021, directing the Assistant Director of Land Records to consider the contents of the letter dated

¶45

7

¶46

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶47

08.07.2019 issued by respondent No.4 – Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, and to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. However, due to the failure of the authorities to comply with the said order, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings by filing CCC No.1090/2022. In response to the contempt petition, the Assistant Director of Land Records submitted a compliance affidavit and placed on record a copy of the sketch showing enjoyment dated 19.07.2023, marked as Annexure-N. Relying on this document, the petitioner submits that the sketch confirms his possession and cultivation of 4 acres 28 guntas of agricultural land, which includes 4 acres 9 guntas classified as kharab land, thereby supporting his longstanding occupation, as also evidenced by documents placed at Annexure-K.

¶48

Despite the above factual developments and the express findings in favour of the petitioner, he is aggrieved by the subsequent and arbitrary action of the Technical

¶49

8

¶50

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶51

Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the designated Deputy Director of Land Records. Vide order dated 01.09.2023, respondent No.2 proceeded to reclassify a portion of land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas from 'A' kharab (which denotes land unsuitable for cultivation but often in possession of individuals) to 'B' kharab (land deemed unfit for any private rights or occupation, typically reserved for public use or classified as government property). The petitioner strongly contends that this reclassification was done without notice, justification, or adherence to due process, and appears to have been undertaken solely to facilitate diversion and grant of the said land in favour of respondent No.5. It is this impugned reclassification and the consequent grant that the petitioner has challenged in the present proceedings, as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of his constitutional and proprietary rights.

¶52

9

¶53

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶54

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶55

petitioner, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for BBMP and the learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.5. I have given my anxious consideration to the writ papers and the statement of objections filed by respondent No.5.

¶56

Upon a meticulous examination of the revenue and land records, it becomes abundantly clear that the land purportedly granted in favour of respondent No.5 pertains to Survey No.26, which originally measured a total extent of 28 acres and 38 guntas. However, a careful scrutiny of the relevant documentation further reveals that the portion of land held and claimed by the petitioner had already undergone several statutory and administrative procedures, including durasth, assessment of land revenue, and phodi . These official acts confirm that the extent of land granted in favour of the petitioner's vendor was subsequently rectified and officially recorded as 4 acres and 28 guntas, instead of

¶57

10

¶58

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶59

the initially recorded 5 acres, along with an additional extent of 4 acres and 9 guntas classified as kharab land. This rectification is clearly evidenced at Annexure-D, which reflects the updated extent and classification of the petitioner's holding.

¶60

Further, the Record of Rights, Tenancy, and Crops (RTC), produced at Annexure-K, provides additional clarity. The RTC entry in respect of Survey No.26/1 establishes that the total extent of this sub-survey number measures 8 acres and 37 guntas. Of this, 3 acres and 20 guntas are classified as 'A' kharab land, while 29 guntas are shown as 'B' kharab land. Crucially, the sketch prepared and submitted by the Assistant Director of Land Records, dated 19.07.2023 and marked as Annexure-N, corroborates this classification and further affirms the petitioner's possession and ownership over 4 acres and 28 guntas of cultivable land, in addition to 4 acres and 9 guntas of kharab land. This includes the 3 acres and 20 guntas classified as 'A'

¶61

11

¶62

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶63

kharab, which had been acknowledged by the revenue authorities as forming part of the petitioner's holding. The documentary evidence, including the RTC and the official sketch, clearly establishes the petitioner’s long-standing rights and the respondents’ own recognition of such rights.

¶64

In light of the above, a deeper and closer scrutiny of the official records leaves no room for doubt that the authorities, having realized that no unencumbered or vacant land was available within Survey No.26, resorted to a deliberate and arbitrary reclassification of the petitioner’s land. In an apparent attempt to make land available for the benefit of respondent No.5, the authorities have taken the drastic and unlawful step of reclassifying a portion of the petitioner’s holding , specifically, 3 acres and 20 guntas of 'A' kharab land to 'B' kharab. This reclassification is not only factually and legally unsustainable, but also appears to be a calculated effort to divest the petitioner of his lawful holding under the guise of administrative action. The petitioner

¶65

12

¶66

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶67

contends that the classification of the land as 'A' kharab had already been settled and acknowledged by the authorities themselves, and that such land, though termed kharab, remained in his possession and was not subject to any competing claim or public use.

¶68

The actions of the respondent officials, in attempting to alter the classification in order to justify the grant in favour of respondent No.5, are therefore clearly arbitrary, mala fide, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner asserts that this act constitutes an unlawful encroachment upon his legally recognized rights and seeks appropriate relief from this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned reclassification and consequent grant.

¶69

This Court in various judgments has consistently held that 'A' kharab land cannot be re-classified as 'B' kharab land without following due process. One of the key

¶70

13

¶71

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶72

judgments in this regard is the decision in the case of Muniyappa vs. Tahsildar and Others¹ where this Court has held that reclassification of 'A' kharab land to 'B' kharab land requires a proper enquiry and opportunity for the land owner to be heard. Similarly, in Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka² , this Court reiterated that the land owners rights over 'A' kharab land cannot be severally extinguished without due process.

¶73

On a detailed examination of records, more particularly the sketch furnished by the respondent officials in contempt proceedings evidenced at Annexure-N coupled with RTC which is evidenced at Annexure-K and the durasth proceedings evidenced at Annexure-D, it is clearly evident that petitioner owns a cultivable portion measuring 4 acres 20 guntas and 3 acres 20 guntas of 'A' kharab land. Time and again, this Court has consistently held that 'A' kharab

¶74

1 (2003)ILR KAR 400

¶75

2 (2015) 2 KCCR 1449

¶76

14

¶77

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶78

land is clearly attached to the owners and the State has no control over 'A' kharab lands.

¶79

Upon a thorough perusal of the entire material on

¶80

record, including the sketch produced by the respondent authorities during the contempt proceedings (Annexure-N), the RTC extract (Annexure-K), and the durasth and rectification proceedings (Annexure-D), this Court finds that the reclassification of the land in question measuring 3 acres 20 guntas from 'A' kharab to 'B' kharab is not only arbitrary but also vitiated by clear malafides. The records unambiguously demonstrate that the land now sought to be appropriated in favour of respondent No.5 was, in fact, part of the land already acknowledged as being in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. It is evident from the sketch and the durasth proceedings that following the subdivision and re-survey, the land held by the petitioner came to be assigned Survey No.26/1, while the original allotment of 1 acre 20 guntas made to respondent

¶81

15

¶82

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶83

No.5 pertained only to Survey No.26. The creation of Survey No.26/1 and the separate classification of lands therein clearly distinguished the petitioner’s holdings from the rest of the survey number.

¶84

Further, the RTC for Survey No.26/1 categorically indicates that an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas is classified as 'A' kharab. This classification, as consistently held by this Court in binding precedents such as Muniyappa vs. Tahsildar and Others and Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka, carries significant legal implications. The classification of land as 'A' kharab denotes that although the land may not be presently assessed to land revenue, it remains under the possession and control of the landholder and does not vest in the State. Therefore, any reclassification of such land into 'B' kharab implying its conversion into government land cannot be undertaken by executive fiat or internal correspondence. It must necessarily be preceded by a detailed enquiry, wherein the

¶85

16

¶86

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶87

landholder is afforded full opportunity to be heard, as mandated by principles of natural justice and settled judicial precedents.

¶88

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the record unequivocally reveals that the disputed extent of 3 acres 20 guntas had already been classified and acknowledged as 'A' kharab land by the respondent authorities themselves, as evident from the sketch furnished during contempt proceedings (Annexure-N). The acknowledgment of this classification by the very officials who later issued the impugned orders indicates a glaring inconsistency and further substantiates the petitioner’s claim that the reclassification was motivated by extraneous considerations. In particular, the petitioner contends and the record supports that this reclassification was engineered solely to accommodate respondent No.5, despite there being no available land under Survey No.26 for such allotment.

¶89

17

¶90

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶91

The impugned orders passed by the Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Director of Land Records, which are produced at Annexures-E and R, are therefore patently illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. These orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without notice or hearing to the petitioner, and in contravention of the settled legal position laid down by this Court regarding the treatment of 'A' kharab lands. The attempt to dispossess the petitioner of his land under the guise of reclassification and subsequent grant is manifestly malafide and cannot be permitted to stand.

¶92

Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned orders at Annexures-E and R are liable to be quashed and set aside, and appropriate directions be issued to restore the classification of the disputed land as 'A' kharab, thereby protecting the petitioner’s lawful rights.

¶93

18

¶94

WP NO.3148 of 2024

¶95

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶96

ORDER

¶97

(i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶98

(ii) The order dated 13.05.2009 passed in No.LND(POO)CR:47/07-08 by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-E is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by Technical Assistant to Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-R is quashed and set aside;

¶99

(iii) The respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to restore the petitioner's name insofar as 3 acres 20 guntas of 'A' kharab in Sy.No.26/1;

¶100

(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶101

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶102

ALB

Sri.R. Chandra v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.R. Chandra v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash S/O.Marigouda Dharaneppagoudar Vs Sri.Arun S/O.Krishnaji Damodar

H.G. Thimma Reddy S/O Giriyappa @ Giri Gouda Vs Smt.Leelavathi W/O Late Yanka Reddy

Smt. Laxmi Vs Smt. Ushabai

Sri.S.Vazeer Ahmed @ Vazeer Pasha Vs the Joint Director of Land Records

Ghouse Mohiundeen Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer , Vs Doddamani Kariayappa S/O Doddamani Fakkirappa