Anjanappa and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Suffice it to extract the order dated 6.2.2014 which reads thus:

"In this writ action, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to affect mutation and all revenue entries in the name of the petitioners in respect of agricultural land bearing sy. No. 14 and 15 of Hagadur village, K.R. Puram, Hobli, known as Bangalore South Taluk.

The petitions are listed for preliminary hearing. Learned Government Advocate Sri D. Aswatappa has taken notice for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Sri Chithappa vehemently contends the respondents have unjustifiably refused to consider the representation given by the petitioner for affecting mutation in respect of the agricultural land in sy. No. 15 of Hagadur village, about which they have been declared as absolute owners. He would submit, petitioners had filed the suit in O.S. 231/00 against the Government and have been successful in obtaining decree declaring they have perfected title by adverse possession against the Government. He submits, such decree has reached finality and therefore based on that, his clients are entitled to mutation of revenue entries, change of khatha, etc., which the authorities have refused.

While learned counsel for the petitioners raises such ground, learned AGA, Mr. Aswathappa has drawn my attention to similar writ petitions which have come up before this court in W.P. Nos. 511/14 and 515/14 in which similar grounds were urged which this court did not straightaway accept. This court has directed the records of original suits referred to in those writ petitions to be summoned. He also submits, the judgments and decrees relied by the petitioners are of ex-parte decrees without giving opportunity to the State Government.

Responding to such contention, Mr. Chithappa submits such grounds were accepted by this court in W.P. Nos. 44952/13 and 45437/13 in which this court has issued mandamus as sought for. He has produced a copy of the order of those writ petitions which reads thus:

"Sri Chithappa, learned advocate submit that the writ petition may be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent in the matter of effecting entries in the revenue records relating to the subject property.

Submission of learned counsel is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of.

However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent with a fresh representation for relief, if any.

No costs."

From a perusal of the order passed by this court, it is clear that those writ petitions have not been disposed of accepting the judgments and decrees in the original suits. All that the coordinate Bench of this court has done is, to record the submission of the petitioner''s counsel and disposed of the writ petitions.

In view of such serious contest by the State Government, I have perused the records of O.S. 231/00 relied by the petitioners in this writ petition. It is very alarming and disturbing to note that O.S. 231/00 was filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Divn.), Bangalore Rural, on 15.4.2000, called on 8.6.2000 and has been decreed on 10.11.2000. The reasoning assigned by the trial judge to decree the suit is as follows:

"7. After filing of the suit, suit summons was issued to the defendant. The defendant remained absent, and hence he has been placed ex-parte and hence the case was posted for plaintiff''s argument.

In order to prove his case, plaintiff was examined as PW 1 and he has produced Ex. P. 1 to P. 17. PW 1 reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. The evidence of PW 1 and Ex. P. 1 to P. 17 remained unchallenged."

Heard the plaintiff''s counsel.

Perused the documents produced by the plaintiff which are not in dispute. From these undisputed facts documents, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case for decreeing the suit. Further there are no legal impediments to decree the suit. Hence I proceed to pass the following:

''The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs as prayed for declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having perfected his right, title and interest over the same by adverse possession. The suit of the plaintiff is also decreed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents permanently from interfering with the plaintiff''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.''

The proceeding extracted above would show that the trial court has entertained the suit without noticing that the suits had been filed for declaration without prior statutory notice as envisaged under Section 80, C.P.C. It is also regrettable to note that the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue and the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District were made parties, apart from the State Government, but they have failed to contest the proceedings. They also failed to respond to summons resulting in the case being decided ex-parte. No further action has been taken to set aside those judgments and decrees even when such ex-parte judgments and decrees were brought to their notice.

In the circumstances, at this juncture I do not wish to make any observation as to who is at fault, but I am of the opinion that there should be a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, to file a detailed statement explaining the circumstances in which O.S. 231/00 was allowed to be decreed ex-parte and without contest, and as to why similar suits said to have been filed before the courts below have been allowed ex-parte. Such report should be submitted by the next date of hearing.

Besides, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar is directed to submit a report as to whether the petitioners had submitted any application for regularization of their alleged unauthorized occupation and is there any application submitted by them for effecting Durasthi/Phodi and if so, what action is taken till now.

A copy of this order shall be marked to the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for communication to Government officers for compliance.

At the same time, a copy of this order be marked to the Registrar Vigilance of this court to obtain information from the Presiding Officer of the court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Divn.), Bangalore Rural District, in which O.S. 231/00 was filed and decreed, for ascertainment as to how many such cases have been filed in that court and to place such information by the next date of hearing.

Post this writ petition along with other writ petitions for further orders on 19.2.2014."

Today, learned Government Advocate submits that appeals have been filed against ex-parte judgments and decrees declaring petitioners have perfected their title to government property by way of adverse possession. In that view of matter, petitioners must await the decisions in the appeals and hence disentitled to writ of mandamus.

In the result, these petitions are rejected, since in the circumstances writ of mandamus is unavailable to direct respondent-authorities to record the name of petitioners in the revenue records under Section 127 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.