Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 160
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. VEERAPPA, J.
Krishnappa S/o Late Munishamappa – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13029 of 2015
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. K.A. Ariga.
For the Respondent: Sri. Y.D. Harsha.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that public servants must exhibit honesty, integrity, and faithfulness in implementing constitutional policies, and actions must be taken within a reasonable time, even when no specific period of limitation is prescribed.
Headnote:
victimization - Land Revenue Act - [Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Section 136(3), Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978] - The court addressed the victimization of the petitioner by the dual stand taken by the Government Authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court quashed the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and imposed costs on the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner for dereliction of their duty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's land was granted to his grandmother with a condition that it should not be alienated for 10 years. The land was sold in violation of this condition, and the Assistant Commissioner declared the sale null and void, restoring the land to the petitioner's grandmother. The possession was handed over to the petitioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings to cancel the entries made in favor of the petitioner after more than 50 years.
Finding of the Court:
The Deputy Commissioner's initiation of proceedings after more than 50 years was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was quashed. Costs were imposed on the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner for dereliction of their duty.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, after more than 50 years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Deputy Commissioner's actions were unreasonable and unjustified, especially considering the previous orders and the long lapse of time. The court emphasized the duty of public servants to exhibit honesty, integrity, and faithfulness in implementing constitutional policies.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was quashed. Costs were imposed on the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner for dereliction of their duty.
The core subject of this judgment is Land Law, specifically focusing on Property Rights [judgement_subject].
The facts considered by the court include: - The original grant of land to the grandmother of the petitioner with a condition that it should not be alienated for 10 years (!) (!) . - The sale of the land by the grandmother within the prohibited period, and subsequent legal proceedings declaring the sale null and void, restoring the land to the original grantor (!) (!) . - The subsequent possession and revenue record entries in the petitioner’s favor, indicating that the land was restored and in lawful possession of the petitioner’s family for many years (!) (!) (!) . - The initiation of proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner after a lapse of more than 50 years, challenging the validity of the original grant and the revenue entries, and the procedural irregularities and delays involved (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court’s analysis of the evidence, including the finality of the original grant order, the possession handed over to the petitioner, and the long-standing revenue entries, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated after such a long delay were unjustified and contrary to principles of natural justice and reasonable time (!) (!) .
In essence, the court examined the historical facts of the land grant, subsequent transactions, legal restoration, and the procedural lapses and delays that rendered the later proceedings invalid.
ORDER :
1. This a classic case of the victimization of the petitioner by the dual stand taken by the Government Authorities i.e. the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is before this Court, seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 10.11.2011 made in RRT/(2)N(A)/CR/31/2008-09 passed by the 4th respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, directing the authorities to remove the entries made in the name of the petitioner in respect of Sy. No. 74/313 measuring 2 acres of Bandikodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
(I) FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Sy. No. 74/313 measuring 2 acres situated at Bandikodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, was granted in favour of one Nagamma, the grand-mother of the petitioner, on 04.08.1962 in No. LND 1/61-62, with a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of ten years from the date of the grant. On 21.05.1969, before expiry of seven years, Smt. Nagamma-grantee sold the said land, contrary to the conditions of grant under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Thereafter, Nagamma filed an application under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, before the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land and to declare that the sale-deed dated 21.05.1969 executed by her, as null and void. The Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the parties, by the Order dated 26.09.1988 allowed the application, declared that the sale-deed dated 21.05.1969 executed by Nagamma is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, as null and void and restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the said Nagamma. The said Order dated 26.09.1988 passed by the Assistant Commissioner has reached finality. Inspite of the said Order, the purchaser did not vacate the land. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, by the Order dated 15.02.1992, in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of Section 39(ii) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, directed the Tahsildar to take possession of the land and to restore the same to the legal representatives of Nagamma.
3. Subsequently, on 14.07.1992, the Assistant Commissioner issued an endorsement/order stating that the possession of the land in question has been handed over to the legal representative of Nagamma i.e. Sri Krishnappa-present petitioner, on 21.05.1992. The said order has reached finality. In the meanwhile, the petitioner being the legal representative of original grantee-Nagamma, filed an application before the 5th respondent-Tahsildar for change of khatha in respect of the land in question, along with affidavit dated 02.04.1991. Based on the said application and affidavit, the khatha was changed in the name of the petitioner. The RTC and mutation entry also was changed in the name of the petitioner in the year 1991-92 in M.R. No. 9/91-92. The revenue entries were made in the name of the petitioner from 1993-94 onwards, till 2005-06, as per Annexure-H and the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land in question.
4. When things stood thus, very strangely, the Deputy Commissioner, initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and proceeded to pass the impugned Order canceling the entries made in favour of the petitioner, on the ground that the land was not granted to the petitioner by the Government and the entries made in his name unauthorized
