Heard Sri. K. Diwakar, learned Senior counsel along

with Sri. Aditya D, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri. R. Subramanya, learned Addl. Advocate General along

with Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

After hearing the counsels, it becomes apparent

that the Assistant Commissioner has over stepped and in

complete disregard of the provisions of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964 has proceeded to unilaterally cancel the

entries in the revenue records, in favour of the petitioners.

The facts leading to the said aspect is that the

private respondent had filed a compliant before the

Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court alleging

land grabbing by the petitioners in Sy.No.16 of Kengatte

Village, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District. That the

said survey number is a part of the lake bed/bund. The

Special Court on receipt of the complaint, proceeded to

issue a direction to the Tahsildar to draw up a Report

4

regarding the status of the land said to have been

encroached or in the possession of the petitioners.

Report was called for from an officer, who was

not an officer before the Court. It is strange that the local

custodian of the records i.e., Tahsildar, is pointedly ignored

in several of the proceedings before the Karnataka Land

Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts. It is the Tahsildar,

being the custodian of the records, who is best placed to

assist the Court. In that view, we are of the considered

opinion that the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition

Special Courts would be better of in directing the

parties/complainants to array the Tahsildar also as a formal

party/respondent in order to facilitate smooth hearing and

production of records. This would also enable the Special

Court to examine if there is any 8active9 collusion between

the

alleged

8land

grabber9

and

the

revenue

authority/authorities.

5.

In the instant case, a Report came to be

submitted to the Court by the Tahsildar and thereafter, the

5

unwarranted

action

by

the

Assistant

Commissioner

occurred. It is stated that the Special Court has received the

Report. On a query as to whether any further directions

have been issued, it is stated in the negative.

6.

We have perused the records. Records also do

not reveal any directions by the Special Court. Despite the

same, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner has

initiated a suo-moto action and proceeded to pass orders

annulling the entries favoring the petitioners. What causes

us consternation is that, the Assistant Commissioner not

only being literate but is also well trained in the matter of

discharging quasi-judicial functions. As a quasi-judicial

authority, the bare minimum requirement was notice to the

parties and for reasons best known and for reasons not

recorded, the parties have neither been put on notice nor

have they been heard.

7.

The fact remains that there is no finding or

direction from the Special Court holding the possession of

the petitioners as being illegal. In the absence of such a

6

finding by any judicial authority, the revenue entries carry

weight, as presumptive value is attached to them under

Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is

this aspect of the matter, which is capable of causing

mischief as the order of the Assistant Commissioner has all

the trapping of causing prejudice to the case of the

petitioners before the Special Court. A bare minimum that

was required of the Assistant Commissioner was at least to

issue a notice in the event, he thought he was empowered

to act in the manner.

8.

In our opinion, we would go a step further to

hold that when matters are seized of by the Courts, the

executive/bureaucracy/tribunal

and

quasi-judicial

authorities would do well to hold their hands and await the

decision on the issues seized of by the Courts unless for

reasons recorded by the authorities, urgent intervention is

imperative and in order to sub-serve larger public good or

cause. There is no explana