Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
N. Raghavendra Murthy S/o Late Narappa and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka Department of Revenue and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 22658-22662 of 2015 & 22663 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 23040 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 23079 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 23791 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 24853 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 25462-25497 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 25592 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 25655-25656 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 25663-25673 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 25675-25686 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 26062 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 26063-26064 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 26717 of 2015 & 26852 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 26814-26815 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 26816 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 27488-27492 of 2015 & 27494-27495 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 27761-27762 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 27966 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 28082-28085 of 2015 (KL-RR/SUR), 28196 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 28197 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 28198 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 28199 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 28247-28248 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 28250 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 28456 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 28719 of 2015 & 28720-28723 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 28759-28764 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 28853 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 29049 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 30553-30558 of 2015 & 32034-32038 of 2015 & 32039 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 30603 of 2015 & 34567-34568 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 31029 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 31138-31143 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 31444 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 33192-33194 of 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR), 35324 of 2015 & 44691-44693 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 35654 of 2015 & 42912-42916 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 36304 of 2015 & 2830-2833/2016 (KLR-RES), 43884 of 2015 (KLR-RES), 12633, 15024 of 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR), 63797-63798 of 2016 (KLR-RES), 1900 of 2018 (KLR-RES), 44533 of 2018 (KLR-RES)
Decided On : 19-06-2020
The Karnataka High Court ruled on the validity of impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('K.L.R. Act'). The petitioners, claiming to be the owners and in possession of properties, challenged the orders that declared the lands in question as 'B Kharab' (government lands reserved for public purpose) and directed the cancellation of Kathas (mutation entries) standing in their names.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed to be the owners and in possession of properties and traced their title from the Maharaja of Mysore. They relied on sale deeds, consequent entries in the records of the Mysore City Municipal Corporation, and other records to evidence their title, possession, and enjoyment. The petitioners argued that the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction, violated principles of natural justice, and were barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction and were, therefore, liable to be set aside. The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had exceeded his powers under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act by adjudicating on the title to the properties, which was beyond the scope of the provision. The Court also held that the impugned orders were passed after an unreasonable delay of several decades, which was impermissible in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the power to review his earlier order dated 20.06.2012, which had dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act. 2. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act were amenable to the remedy of an appeal under Section 67(3) of the K.L.R. Act and hence, the petitioners ought to be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of challenging the impugned orders before the civil court. 3. Whether the bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India would operate only if the parties litigating are the Maharaja and the State. In the present case, as the petitioners were claiming derivative title from the Maharaja of Mysore, whether they were barred from seeking relief under Article 363 of the Constitution of India. 4. Whether the impugned orders passed pursuant to the direction of the Government dated 18.08.2012 were an order passed under dictation and must be set aside on this ground alone.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of review enabling reconsideration: The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the power to review his earlier order dated 20.06.2012, which had dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act. The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had purported to exercise the power of procedural review, which was available even in the absence of specific conferment of power of review under the statute. However, the Court held that the impugned orders passed on a bare scrutiny would reveal that the impugned order had the effect of reviewing the earlier order on merits, which was impermissible. 2. Exercise of power under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act: The Court held that the impugned orders passed under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act were not amenable to the remedy of an appeal under Section 67(3) of the K.L.R. Act and hence, the petitioners were not required to be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of challenging the impugned orders before the civil court. The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had exceeded his powers under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act by adjudicating on the title to the properties, which was beyond the scope of the provision. 3. Bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India: The Court held that the bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India would not operate only if the parties litigating are the Maharaja and the State. In the present case, as the petitioners were claiming derivative title from the Maharaja of Mysore, they were not barred from seeking relief under Article 363 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that the dispute related to the title to the properties and fell outside the purview of any enquiry under Section 67 of the K.L.R. Act. 4. Order passed under dictation: The Court held that the impugned orders passed pursuant to the direction of the Government dated 18.08.2012 were not an order passed under dictation and did not require to be set aside on this ground alone.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act. The Court directed the revenue authorities/municipal authorities to consider making appropriate entries in the names of the petitioners upon representations being made in accordance with law and as per the applicable procedure, in light of the findings made in the order. The Court also directed the deletion of the entry 'B Kharab' wherever found in the revenue records of the petitioners.
ORDER :
I. Facts of the case:-
(i) The petitioners in most of these cases claim to be the owners and in possession of properties and trace their title from the Maharaja of Mysore. The petitioners rely on sale deeds, consequent entries in the records of the Mysore City Municipal Corporation amongst other records to evidence their title, possession and enjoyment. It is only in W.P.No.25592/2015, the Royal Family themselves are before this Court challenging the action of Deputy Commissioner.
(ii) Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RRT Nos.540/2014-2015, 541/2014-2015 and 542/2014- 2015 whereby it has been held that the lands in which the petitioners claim interest and rights were originally ‘B Kharab’ i.e. Government lands reserved for public purpose, and accordingly consequential directions were issued to the Tahsildar to cancel the Kathas, i.e. mutation entries standing in the name of the petitioners.
(iii) It is stated that the Governor General of India had accepted the offer of Sri Jayachamarajendra Wode yar, the Maharaja of Mysore to accede to the Indian Dominion on 16.08.1947 as per the Instrument of Accession (Annexure-U in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015). Pursuant to the Instrument of Accession, an agreement was entered into on 23.01.1950 between the Governor General of India and the Maharaja of Mysore (Annexure V1 in W.P.No.25462-25497/2015). As per Article II (2) of the agreement, the Maharaja of Mysore was required to furnish to the Government of India an inventory of all moveable and immovable properties, which would be held by him as private property.
(iv) As per the list of immovable properties that was submitted (Annexure-W in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015) the whole of Kurubarahalli Village in Survey No.4, measuring 1563 acres 31 guntas, including tank bed area with an exception of Survey Nos.1, 2 and 3; property in Survey No.41 of Aalanahalli Village measuring 178 acres 32 guntas, and property in Survey No.39 of Chowdahalli Village measuring 259 acres 27 guntas, were described as private properties held by the Maharaja of Mysore as on 26.01.1950.
(v) The said list of properties referred to above having been furnished to the Government of India, the same came to be acknowledged and accepted by the Government of India in terms of Article II of the agreement, to be the private property belonging to the Maharaja of Mysore (Annexure-V in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015).
(vi) Subsequently it appears that while the Maharaja of Mysore has retained some of the lands, the remaining portions of land came to be alienated eventually coming into the possession of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that many of the properties that have been sold by the Maharaja of Mysore has been the subject matter of real estate development, and Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) had approved the development plans and Mysore City Corporation had approved plans for construction, and Katha entries had also been effected by Mysore City Corporation as well as the revenue authorities in the names of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners and subsequently the petitioners.
(vii) It is stated that the Government having been appraised of the necessity of removal of the entry of ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue and survey records of the lands which are subject matter of the present dispute had directed the Authorities to initiate necessary proceedings in that regard. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner conducted an enquiry under Sections 67(2) and 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘K.L.R. Act’ for brevity) and arrived at the conclusion vide the order dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure-AJ in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015) that the aforementioned lands were not ‘Government lands’ and had directed dropping of further proceedings – relating to the enquiry under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act. Consequently
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
