The Revised Master Plan supersedes the village map, and the presence of a lake sign does not invalidate an approved industrial project, affirming the principle of res judicata in administrative decisions.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Sections 94 and 104 - Writ petition challenging the order of the Joint Director of Land Records regarding the removal of lake bed sign from the village map - The court emphasized the principle of res judicata, stating that once a matter is decided, it should not be reopened - The Tahsildar had previously determined the land as private property, and further proceedings on the same issue were barred - The Revised Master Plan supersedes the village map, indicating land use for industrial purposes - The Joint Director's inability to remove the lake sign did not affect the validity of the approved project. (Paras 5, 18, 22)

(B) Administrative Law - Judicial review of administrative decisions - The court clarified that while the Joint Director lacked the jurisdiction to remove the lake sign, the continued presence of the sign does not invalidate the government-approved project. (Paras 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a developer, sought to quash an order preventing the removal of a lake sign from a village map, arguing that the land had been designated for industrial use in a revised master plan. Previous proceedings had dropped allegations of encroachment on the land.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Joint Director's order, affirming that the land's designation in the master plan prevails over the village map's lake sign.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the lake sign in the village map could impede the approved industrial project.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revised master plan's designation of the land for industrial use supersedes the village map, and the Joint Director's authority did not extend to altering the village map.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

ORAL ORDER

The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

In the year 2019-20, proceedings were initiated against Sri.G Srinivas, Sri.G Radhakrishna, Sri.Gurappa Reddy and Sri.V. Ananda by the Government under Sections 94 and 104 of the KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT . It was contended that the aforementioned persons had encroached upon land bearing Sy.No.78/1 measuring to an extent of 2 acre 29.08 guntas and 0.33.08 guntas and Sy.No.78/2 measuring to an extent of 4 acre 5 guntas and 4 acre 30 guntas of Kere Angala situated at Doddanekkundi village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.

2. The aforementioned persons appeared before the Tahsildar and contended that originally the land bearing Sy.No.78 of Doddanekkundi village had been allotted by the Government in favour of one Appa Rao and later on, his sons sold and conveyed the land in favour of Sri.H.P.Gurappa Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 24.03.1960. They also placed reliance on the revenue records to indicate that it was their land and also placed reliance on the master plan of the year 2015, which had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority, which indicated that the said land was earmarked for Industrial use. The Tahsildar on going through the entire materials, ultimately came to the conclusion that the land in question was a cultivable land belonging to the private persons and was not a kere angala. He accordingly passed an order on 12^th of June 2020 dropping the proceedings against the aforementioned persons.

3. Notwithstanding the said proceedings, a second notice came to be issued by the Tahsildar on 18.02.2021 reiterating the contention that the aforementioned lands was a tank. Being aggrieved, the petitioners herein, who had entered into a Joint Development agreement with the aforementioned four persons and approached this Court by way of W.P.No.19745 of 2021. This Court, by an order dated 12^th of August, 2022 allowed the writ petition in the following terms:

"5. It is by now well settled that there has to be an end to a litigation. The judicial process provided under various statutes is, to ensure that if an issue is raised and decided on merits, the same issue should not be permitted to be re-agitated over and over again. This jurisprudence is based on the principles of Resjudicata. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, when the respondent-Tahsildar has passed an order not very long ago i.e., on 12.06.2020 declaring that the lands in question are private properties and having dropped the proceedings earlier initiated under Sections 94 and 104 of the Act, he could not have issued the impugned notice dated 18.02.2021 invoking the same provisions of law. 6. The State Government is required to make arrangements or put in place a system wherein the revenue authorities should be able to verify from its records as to whether similar proceedings were initiated by the authorities on an earlier occasion. If not, these kind of incidents are bound to repeat. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.

The impugned notice dated 18.02.2021 at Annexure- A, is hereby quashed and set aside. The second respondent-Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, shall take note of the fact that this Court has found his action in issuing the notice was totally uncalled for. This should be treated as a warning to the second respondent- Tahsildar and all such Officers are once again reminded that before issuing such notices they are bound to verify the records, find out whether earlier proceedings were initiated and if it is found that such proceedings were initiated and dropped, they shall not proceed once again on the same cause of action. 8. A copy of this order shall be furnished to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue to be circulated amongst all the Revenue Officers of the State.

Ordered accordingly."

4. Thus, this Court has recorded a finding that the Tahsildar had recorded a f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document