The Deputy Commissioner cannot cancel land grants without proper authority and notice, and claims of forgery must be substantiated by credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 19.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.39809/2012 filed by the respondents.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.

3. The appellants have also challenged the order dated 04.07.2014 passed in I.A.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 of 2013; I.A.Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of 2014 to recall the judgment and order dated 19.02.2023 as mentioned above.

4. The petitioners who filed the writ petition claim that they are the grantees of land in Survey No.44 of Mullur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Before the grant was made in their favour, they were in possession of the said land which would be evident from the revenue records of 1967 to 1968 onwards. The petitioners name reflects in the revenue records. It is further stated that they were given this land finally by grant dated 17.11.1979. Though the grant was made for an upset price, the same was waived in full as per Rule 12 (4) of the KARNATAKA LAND GRANT RULES , 1977. The petitioners' father made the representation to issue Saguvali Chit. Father of the petitioners filed W.P.No.9797/2007, however, the said writ petition came to be dismissed reserving liberty to redress the grievance before the competent authority.

5. The father of the petitioners again made a representation, however, the same was not considered. One more petition bearing W.P.No.8550/2008 came to be filed. The said writ petition was allowed vide the judgment and order dated 20.06.2008 and a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the representations dated 12.10.2007 and 26.12.2007, within a period of six months. One more representation dated 07.08.2008 was made, however, same was not considered.

6. In the meantime, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings for cancelling the grant.

7. A notice was issued to the original grantee. But, same was not served, as the allottee had died. Without service of notice, the order dated 26.08.2009 impugned in the present writ petition came to be passed, whereby the Tahsildar was directed to delete the entry in Column No.12(2) of the RTC and the Deputy Commissioner held that the documents such as, grant certificate and RTC were the created documents and sought to resume the granted land in favour of father of the petitioners.

8. The learned Single Judge having considered the submissions and the facts, was of the view that the suo motu proceedings for cancellation of the grant by the Deputy Commissioner were initiated with an ulterior motive. The cancellation was made by the Deputy Commissioner for which he had no power under Section 136(3) of the KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT , 1964. It has been further held that once the grant was made, the grantee was entitled to Saguvali Chit which is the title document.

9. In the present case, the notice was not issued and the Deputy Commissioner in suo motu proceedings, exparte held that the documents relating to grant and the revenue records were created documents and cancelled the grant.

10. The learned Single Judge having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the record has allowed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order. The Learned Single Judge has held that the Deputy Commissioner would have no power to cancel the grant under Section 136(3) of the KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT . The grant could be cancelled only by the competent authority by invoking the relevant provisions. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is