G.S. Puttaswamy vs State of Karnataka and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—This is the fourth round of litigation by the very same petitioner against the State and its authorities.

In the first instance W.P. No. 25823/1991 was allowed by order dated 19.02.1992, of a learned single Judge directing consideration of petitioner''s representations dated 09.07.1984 and 19.09.1991. On a consideration, the then Tahsildar rejected the application without notice to the petitioner and without extending an opportunity of hearing, hence the second W.P. No. 21401/1993, whence another learned single Judge by order dated 17.02.1998, Annexure ''C'', quashed the order of rejection dated 29.05.1992 and directed reconsideration of the application after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, while rejecting the plea of the State that the land measuring 3 Acres in Sy. No. 181 of Khaggalipura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, of which regularization of unauthorized cultivation was sought within 18 Kms. radius of Bengaluru city, though in fact is at a distance of 23 Kms. from the then existing boundary of Bengaluru city.

In the meanwhile, the action of the Tahsildars of 29 villages in allotting sites under the ''Ashraya Scheme'', when found to be fraudulent, the Government passed the order dated 23.06.1998, Annexure ''D'', annulling all the said allotments however, without taking any action against the said Tahsildars, who presently may have been promoted to higher posts, possibly.

Petitioner''s insistence and persistence as also perseverance led to the letter dated 15.12.2000, Annexure ''E'', of the Tahsildar to the Secretary, Zilla Parishat, Bengaluru, stating that licence should not be issued for construction of any building on the sites allotted under the ''Ashraya Scheme'' in land measuring 3 Acres in Sy. No. 181 of Khaggalipura village, followed by a letter dated 09.04.2001, Annexure ''F'', of the Special Deputy Commissioner addressed to Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, stating that unauthorized construction in Sy. No. 181 deserves to be taken note of and action initiated. Yet again the same, Tahsildar by another letter dated 11.12.2001, Annexure ''G'', highlighting the fact that the allotment of sites formed in Sy. No. 181 of Khaggalipura under the ''Ashraya scheme'' were cancelled, directed the Police authorities of Talagattapura to ensure that no construction is put up on the said land. Again, the Tahsildar by letter dated 22.12.2001, Annexure ''H'', addressed to the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat Samithi reiterated the fact that allotment of sites under the ''Ashraya Scheme'' was cancelled.

Thereafterwards, petitioner for the 3rd time filed W.P. No. 1767/2002 whence another learned single Judge having noticed that once a recommendation is made by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation for the grant of land, the Secretary of the Committee being the Tahsildar was required to issue the certificate of grant or saguvali chit in Form No. 7 and accordingly, observed thus at paragraph No. 5:

"5. The impugned order makes it clear that the grant to the petitioner is subject to the cancellation of Hakku Patras given to the beneficiaries under the Ashraya scheme. Whether those Hakku Patras are cancelled or not is a matter to be decided by the appropriate authorities. It is only after such a decision is taken, the Tahsildar depending upon the said decision has to either issue a certificate as contemplated under Rule 108-D(3) of the Rules or to dismiss the application. The Tahsildar is bound to perform his obligations as stipulated under the aforesaid provisions. As he has failed to do so, the petitioner is fully justified in approaching this Court for such a direction. Hence, I pass the following order:

"Writ petition is allowed. The Tahsildar is directed to implement the order as per Annexure-M in terms thereof and also in terms of Rule 108-D(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. It is always open to the Village Panchayat or any other persons who are vitally interested in the said land, to appear before the Tahsildar and put forth their respective contentions, which the Tahsildar is bound to take note of before passing the appropriate order within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

Parties to bear their own costs."

Several representations of the petitioner to comply with the orders of the High Court though fell on deaf ears and nothing precious was done, nevertheless Tahsildar by notice dated 07.01.2005, Annexure ''M'', called upon the petitioner to furnish a copy of the order in W.P. No. 1767/2002 despite being a party to the proceeding represented by Government Advocate and was fully aware of the order from the year 2002.

It appears that the Assistant Commissioner without authority of law or jurisdiction under either the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 much less the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, initiated a proceeding in the nature of an appeal and registered it as LND/RA/6/2005-06 and in which, appellant was shown to be the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, arraigning the writ petitioner as respondent, to which petitioner filed a detailed statement of objections, Annexure ''P'', pointing out to all the facts including advancing the contention that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction either suo motu or otherwise to initiate the appeal, proceeding in other words, questioned his competence. In addition, petitioner addressed a letter to the "Hon''ble Deputy Commissioner" reiterating the averments in the statement of objections including the fact that the allotment of sites under the ''Ashraya Scheme'' were cancelled by the State Government and there was no impediment for the Tahsildar to exercise power under Rule 108-D(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short ''Rules'') to issue a saguvali chit in respect of the land in question. Nothing precious when done by the Deputy Commissioner, nevertheless on 09.10.2012, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the recommendation dated 06.07.1999 of the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation. Hence, this petition.

Learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions from Dr. Mamatha, the in-charge Tahsildar, with the assistance of the records submits that there was a spot inspection conducted by the Tahsildar and executive officer of Taluka Panchayat on 27.11.2004 whence having not found petitioner in possession of land measuring 3 Acres in Sy. No. 181 of Khaggalipura village, held that petitioner was not an unauthorized occupant of the Government land. It is next submitted that the Tahsildar will have to make an enquiry over whether the allotment of sites under the ''Ashraya Scheme'' in respect of Sy. No. 181 is annulled, as directed by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation and if found that the said allotments are illegal, then would take action in accordance with law to cancel those allotments and thereafter ascertain as to whether petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the land and if found in the affirmative then only a saguvali chit would be issued in exercise of jurisdiction under sub-rule (3) of Rule 108D of the Rules.

To a question of this Court as to whether an appeal was in fact filed by the Tahsildar before the Assistant Commissioner invoking sub-rule (6) of Rule 108D of the Rules in the absence of an order of the Tahsildar, learned Additional Government Advocate examines the provisions of law and submits that no such appeal could have been preferred. In other words, the order Annexure ''T'' in Appeal No. L.N.D.R.A(S):06/2005-06 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is one without jurisdiction and competence.

Every Tahsildar, who was in charge of Bengaluru South Taluk office, ever since the year 1991 onwards, have exerted inertia in considering petitioner''s application a statutory duty, hence time and again compelled petitioner to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Non discharge of statutory duties, smacks of negligence. If such is the conduct of all those officers, it is a wonder as to how the state administration confirmed their service. The persistent filing of petitions on three occasions in the past leading to this 4th petition demonstrates the kind of business carried out by the Tahsildar in the discharge of statutory duties. The conduct of these officers, in the least, is reprehensible.

Petitioner is compelled to knock on the doors of this Court time and again due to deficiency in the service rendered by the Tahsildar, who took charge of the office time and again from the year 1991. Patent illegality is demonstrated by the Assistant Commissioner in passing the order Annexure ''T'' without authority of law, jurisdiction or competence. The Assistant Commissioner deserves nothing short of a departmental enquiry for incompetence in discharge of statutory duties, deserving appropriate punishment.

Regard being had to paragraph No. 5 of the order dated 08.08.2002 of the learned single Judge, noticed supra, coupled with the letter of the Tahsildar indicating that the Government order cancelling the allotments applies to allotments under the ''Ashraya Scheme'' in respect of the land in Sy. No. 181, calls for no further enquiry, hence no necessity to ascertain over the legality or validity of such allotments, being due compliance with the recommendation dated 06.07.1999 of the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation.

The only duty required to be performed by the Tahsildar is to pass an order under sub-rule (3) of Rule 108D of the Rules and nothing more.

In the result, this petition is allowed. The order dated 09.10.2012 annexure ''T'' of the 2nd respondent -Assistant Commissioner, is quashed. Appeal Proceeding dismissed with a direction to the Tahsildar to pass an order under sub-rule (3) of Rule 108D of the Rules by 31st of December 2015.

costs quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) payable proportionately by every Tahsildar, who held the post from the year 2002 onwards. In the event of failure to make payment of costs to the petitioner, the Chief Secretary is directed to make the payment and recover the same from out of the salaries of those officers and also initiate departmental proceeding noticed supra. Cost to be paid by 31.12.2015.