Shri P. Ramachandra Setty vs State of Karnataka, The Special Deputy Commissioner and The Tahsildar

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petitioner claims to be a purchaser of an extent of 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 54 (New Sy. No. 150) of Kadujakkanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, under the registered sale deed dated 12.02.1996 executed by one Sri. Thippaiah. It is also the claim of the petitioner that through a series of transaction starting from sale dated 22.2.1965 executed by one Chikka Venkatappa in favour of Smt. Chikka Venkatamma and Smt. Chikka Venkatamma in turn sold the said land in favour of one Sri Thippaiah. Property had ultimately become the property of the writ petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said Chikka Venkatappa was the original grantee of the entire extent of land by grant bearing No. GD-3/1050-51 made in his favour by the Amaldar etc. Writ petitioner on such purchase it appears sought for change of entries in the revenue records in his name by giving an application, but was given to understand by the Tahsildar concerned that the enquiry of suo motu proceedings had been initiated in respect of the entire extent of land in Sy. Nos. 53 and 54 of Kadujakkanahalli, measuring a vast extent of 719 Acres and 24 guntas, was pending passing of further orders by the Deputy Commissioner; that no revenue entries can be effected or changed. It is the case of the writ petitioner that on coming to know of such proceedings dated 12.10.2009 in RRT (2) CR. 15/99-2000 clubbed with No. RRT (2)(A) CR. 1/2006-2007 (copy produced at Annexure-A) by the Special Deputy Commissioner, made an application for impleadment and joined the array of respondents in that proceedings to assert his rights in respect of the subject land that he had purchased.

However, it appears that the Special Deputy Commissioner as per his order dated 12.10.2009 held that there was no grant in respect of the subject land in the survey number; that the grants claimed by the various respondents were all bogus and no revenue records existed to support the said grants and therefore, passed an order to change the entries in the revenue records to that of Government from that of names of different individuals and further directed to resume the entire extent of 128 acres 37 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 53 and 54 free from all encumbrances and to retain and safeguard it as government land. Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by this order and has preferred these writ petitions praying for quashing the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and a further mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar to effect the katha change and revenue entries be made in the name of the petitioner in respect of the 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 54 (New No. 150) of Kadujakkanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk etc.

Notice had been issued to the respondents and respondents are represented by Smt. S. Susheela, learned AGA.

Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submission of Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner is not valid in law. He has travelled beyond jurisdiction etc., and that he has not properly examined the grant made in favour of the predecessors in title of the writ petitioner viz., original grantee-Chikka Venkatappa in the year 1950.

On the other hand, submission of Smt. S. Susheela, learned AGA is that the writ petitions are not tenable at the instance of a person like the petitioner; that he is a person claiming as a purchaser on the premise that the predecessor in title was a grantee. Whether there was a valid grant or otherwise in favour of the said Chikka Venkatappa is not dependent on the purchase being made by the petitioner in the year 1996 and therefore, submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and requests for dismissal.

This court exercising writ jurisdiction will not declare title to land-in favour of any person, whether the petitioner has acquired valid title to the subject land under the sale deed dated 12.2.1996 and as to whether his predecessor in title had valid title or not is not a question to be examined in writ jurisdiction, at any rate at the instance of persons like the petitioner. No need to examine the legality of the impugned order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, as the petitioner is not a person directly involved, but a subsequent purchaser much later in point of time. While a matter of this nature cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. It is open for the petitioners to pursue any other remedies available in accordance with law. Without prejudice, these writ petitions are dismissed.