AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ proceedings have been used by unscrupulous tricksters, dodgers and persons who putforth claims to
government lands to further their interest and also seek the aid of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to achieve such designs than to ventilate any of
their legitimate grievance or legal rights.
The present writ petition is one such with the Petitioner approaching this Court in the context of changing of entries (pahani) in the revenue
records by the officials in the revenue department Normally it is neither the function nor is required for a High Court while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to look into correctness or otherwise of such revenue entries, as to in whose name the revenue entry
stood, as to whether it should be mutated in the name of the Petitioner or in the name of the 4th Respondent, in respect of an extent of 8 acres of
land in Sy. No. 116 situated at Kurubarahalli Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
Claim of the Petitioner is that she is a person who is cultivating the land and that either herself or her deceased forefathers name had been
indicated in the revenue records in respect of the subject land, who claim under one Syed Abdul Rahim, who in turn had claimed that he had
purchased the land from one Thirumalaiah and the said Thirumalaiah having become the owner of the subject land in terms of court auction sale
held in the year 1926 etc.
4, It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner or her forefathers had made an application for re-grant of the subject land in their capacity as a
tenant after the legislature enacted the Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short ''the Act'') which appears was brought into force in the year
1958 and one such proceeding under this Act is claimed to be the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Magadi Taluk in LRF.226/78-79, which
had resulted in an adverse order to the Petitioner with the Tribunal having rejected the application for re-grant of the subject land in favour of the
Petitioner in terms of order dated 25.7.1979. This order was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 13672/1979 and this Court in terms of the
order dated 21.11.1983 allowed the petition, set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal.
It is the submission of Sri. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that after the said remand, the development of law being, that it is
not the Land Tribunal which has the jurisdiction to examine such matters arising under the then Mysore Act No. 1, but only the Special Deputy
Commissioner in terms of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam Vs. State of Karnataka, , the
matter was transferred to the Special Deputy Commissioner and was pending before him.
But the Special Deputy Commissioner having rejected the application for re-grant allegation of the Petitioner being that was not by an order on
merits but due to certain development and on Some technicality, in terms of the order dated 23.1.2004, the writ Petitioner had preferred an appeal
u/s 29 of the Act against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner in appeal No. 913/2005 and it is claimed that the appeal is still pending
before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
While such is the version of the Petitioner, the subject matter of this writ petition in this proceeding and the- related proceedings pertaining to the
revenue records., having indicated the name of the 4th Respondent in terms of the impugned order as per the proceedings of the Tahsildar in M.R.
No. 104/2004-05, resulting in the order dated 10.5.2005 (which is produced as Annexure-A to the petition) whereby the Tahsildar it appears on
an application filed by the 4th Respondent directed change of revenue entries from the name of one Syed Sab in favour of the present 4th
Respondent - Sri. Syed Ahmed S/o. Late Syed Hameed and his children.
The effort on the part of the Petitioner to get over this order in an appeal R.A. (S) 200/2005-06 having been fruitful in terms of the order dated
20.7.2007 Annexure-B to the petition and the Asst. Commissioner restoring the entries as was earlier and having directed the entries to be made
subject to the result of the Petitioner''s appeal pending before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for re-grant in her favour etc., it was the turn
of the present 4th Respondent to approach the Special Deputy Commissioner at Bangalore, in revision petition No. 112/2007-08 invoking
jurisdiction u/s 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ''the KLR Act'').
It is the version of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had filed a memo before the Deputy Commissioner on 17.6.2009 to bring to the notice of the
Deputy Commissioner some aspects, particularly, to call for the records based on which the 4th Respondent had claimed change of revenue
entries viz., the re-grant order of the year 1966 and on the ground that there was no such order in existence etc.
The Special Deputy Commissioner not having heeded to the memo, but nevertheless having passed orders on the revision petition by allowing
the same in terms of the order 25.09.2009 (copy produced at Annexure-E to the petition) and to the detriment of the Petitioner in the sense, the
appellate order of the Asst. Commissioner having been set aside and the order passed by the Tahsildar having been restored, the aggrieved
Petitioner is now seeking relief in this petition for getting over this order, through the present writ petition.
While issuing notice on the main petition this Court in terms of the order dated 16.11.2009 passed an interim order as follows:
ASBJ:
16.11.2009
Learned Counsel for the caveator seeks time.
List after two weeks
Until then, the revenue entry which remained on record on 25.09.2009 shall be retained by the authorities and will remain relevant for the purpose
of consideration.
It is thereafter that the 4th Respondent has filed Misc.W. 9461/2010 for vacating the interim order and after having filed statement of
objections and additional statement of objections, the matter is before this Court for orders on the application.
I have heard Sri R. Om Kumar, learned AGA for Respondents 1 to 3.
The matter is heard both on Misc.W. 9461/2010 for vacating the interim order as also on the merits of the writ petition and while Mr.
Seshagiri Rao, teamed counsel for the Petitioner has made submissions and has taken me through the material on record, and also has drawn my
attention to the records produced before the Tribunal and Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings i.e., now pending before the Tribunal and
Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. Records which are said to contain papers which had not been placed before the Deputy Commissioner in the
revision petition in which the order is passed, and has made very elaborate submissions to contend that the revenue records had all along shown
the name of the Petitioner as cultivator in column 12 of the RTC and that is the position in the revenue records ever since the year 1958 and the
pahanis as pointed out particularly, relating to column 12 of the year 1978-79 being claimed as supporting material.
On the other hand, what is urged on the part of the 4th Respondent by Sri. Savanur and Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Sr. Counsel is that the
revenue entries has all along depicted the name of one Syed Sab and after his demise his widow Syedani Bi and their names correspond to an
extent of 8 acres of land in this survey number and it is not as though the 4th Respondent''s name was changed and the name of the Petitioner
shown in the revenue entries as even according to the Petitioner, the application for re-grant if at all, is still pending in appeal before the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal whether on technicality or on merits, but the appeal having been dismissed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, the
Petitioner cannot claim any right either of ownership or for changing the revenue entries in the revenue records and therefore, submits it is a fit case
not only for vacating the interim order also but for dismissing the writ petition.
It is in the wake of such controversies and deputes the present writ petition. Revenue entries by themselves do not confer title or ownership to
any land on any person.
Disputes relating to revenue entries have become a fertile ground to keep litigating amongst warring parties who went to find an easy alternative
to prove their right, title and interest in lands, by approaching Civil Courts and even invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. Gullible, ignorant people are always taken for a ride by what can be described as land sharks for getting the Lands sold, resold, re-re-sold
and what not to project as though the ownership in lands have changed and all such things are only because some revenue entries have changed
names of persons and more often than not such manipulations in the revenue records to change names being with the connivance of corrupt officials
and many such matters have been stocked before this Court and the mechanism of legal process is being utilized rather mis-utilized to get
legitimacy for such violations and other interested persons try to get over these orders passed by revenue authorities and seek for a remand of such
matters to the authorities by pointing out one mistake or the other in the orders passed by the revenue officials and thereby ensure that litigation is
maintained in a state of limbo to the utmost detriment of bona fide litigants seeking relief in writ jurisdiction and with learned members of the legal
profession busy with such litigation believe in occupying the time of the Court in writ jurisdiction by putting forth all sorts of contentions tenable, not
so tenable, sometimes totally irrelevant even in such trivial matters which even if decided one way or the other does not either resolve the
controversy between the parties or can materially affect the rights of parties in lands, is nothing short of criminal waste of valuable judicial time,
which is scarce and is required to be apportioned amongst all litigants before the Court and in this case, the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Even when there is no real issue involved in such matters, but nevertheless with one such officer who has passed the instant order, while
functioning as a Special Deputy Commissioner who has been given this symbolic designation, being an officer whose name is synonym with
corruption, nepotism, arbitrariness and all sorts of things, is also pointed out, to constitute a ground or justification to set aside the impugned order
passed by him and to remand it to the concerned authority.
It is settled on high authority that Article 227 jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction to keep remanding the matters to lower
courts/authorities. Remand orders can be passed only when it serves some purpose and not otherwise. Revenue entries by themselves do not
confer title. In the present case, what is to be examined is as to in what manner the Petitioner or the 4th Respondent have acquired title to the
property which is more a matter of mystery to this Court I and if at all the question of title can be resolved by the Civil Court and in this case
possibly in the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under the Inams Abolition Act and farther appellate
authority under this Act and not by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
Even before the dispute or the question of title is resolved or finalised, the parties become active to get their names mutated in the revenue
records and by connivance with the corrupt revenue officials, which has become a fertile area of revenue for the revenue official and not to the
State and with exercise of power by the revenue officials being in a haphazard manner and to compound the misery of poor, the land sharks, land
developers, the land grabbers, becoming active has only resulted in illegality, being the order of the day, justice is the victim and more so, when the
subject lands are in the vicinity of a city like Bangalore, where land commands a premium in terms of price.
The present writ petition is only such example of all sorts of illegal activities having taken place. I am constrained to observe that the subject
land in Sy. No. 116 which in terms of revenue entries measures 58 acres depending upon the point of time when it is measured is indicated to be a
gomal land. Gomal land is a government land and can never be subject matter of any private ownership. It is in respect of such gomal land, the
Petitioner and the 4th Respondent are putting forth their claim for grant, re-grant and re-re-grant claiming under the provisions of the Inams
Abolition Act!
However, Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Sr. Counsel clarifies that the extent of gomal land is confined to 61 acres, whereas the land in
respect of which the present dispute relates as is indicated to he 8 acres having the character of Jodi Inam land.
Be that as it may, even the theory of the jodi Inam land appears to be a little doubtful as on the one side while the Petitioner claims to draw title
through one Thirumalaiah, who is said to have purchased the subject land and claims as a tenant under Thirumalaiah, who is said to have purchased
8 acres of land through court auction sale held in the year 1929, the 4th Respondent on the other hand claims title as a kathedar through the sale
deed said to have been executed in favour of the grandmother of the 4th Respondent by name Syedani Bi and the sate dead having been executed
by one Venkataramana Setty.
These are all not matters which are required to be examined nor could be resolved in writ jurisdiction. If at all a dispute of title to the land is to
be resolved, it is only by the Civil Court. Revenue entry by itself has absolutely no significance or permanence and in this state of affairs, interfering
with the orders passed by the authorities in writ jurisdiction attaching more importance to the revenue entries, as though i.e., the one which
determines the rights of parties is not only wrong, in fact, as pointed out by this Court time and again, amounts to attaching undue importance to
revenue entries than it should be attached or given importance. It is the title which should determine the revenue entries and not the vice-versa as
otherwise it will be the case of tail wagging the head.
Added problem in this case is the reputation or to be precise lack of reputation of the officer, who has passed the order but which is not the
criteria which can determine the quality of the order, but nevertheless it is quite possible at times even a corrupt official may be passing a proper
order and therefore the mere reputation or lack of it cannot be the determining factor for interference based on such assumptions and presumptions
and if that were to be so, majority of the orders passed by the revenue authorities are to be set aside because of the reputation of the revenue
officials by and large being that they are corrupt and highly corrupt.
In this state of affairs and with the Petitioner''s claim seeking for cultivation rights only on that premise seeking for re-grant and it is not being
disputed that the Petitioner is one belonging to the family of Patels in the village may be himself a jodidar or so. It is rather doubtful as to whether
the Petitioner ever cultivated the land. It is legendary in our society that Patels and Shanbhogs have retained their status as though it is they, who
record entries in such official documents and such entries are perpetuated and in such overbearing atmosphere but acting upon the entries or
merely place before this Court is nothing short of mala fide exercise in ignorance.
As already noticed, the revenue entries are not at all more significant than title and as to whether in the absence of any material to indicate that
any entries could have been made in the of one or the other party based on the title, so far which is still in a state of flux, non-interference is the
proper course in such matters.
However, the manner in which the Special Deputy Commissioner has exercised has power leaves much to be desired and with the reputation
being not any better, it is necessary that the matter has to be referred to the Karnataka Lokayukta for further investigation into the conduct of the
Special Deputy Commissioner - 1st Respondent in passing such order impugned as Annexure-E to the petition and the matter requires full and
proper enquiry by the Investigating Agency like the Karnataka Lokayukta.
Submission of Sri Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the authorities have acted upon the impugned order, subsequent to
this Court passing an impugned order and that no doubt is promptly disputed by the learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent, is also another factor
to indicate that the revenue authorities have been acting in a partisan and interested manner and the fact that the revenue entries are sought to be
changed in the year 2005 based on the order passed in the year 1966 is another strong circumstance to doubt the bona fides of the revenue
officials acting on an order for changing the entries in the revenue records after four decades of the order being passed. These are all matters,
which call for proper scrutiny through an investigation and I am of the opinion, that it is the Karnataka Lokayukta which may be the investigating
agency which can be entrusted with this responsibility, with the revenue authorities being in very dark shades and government and its officials not
inspiring the confidence of this Court, it is only the Karnataka Lokayukta which can be depended upon and entrusted with the investigation,
particularly for looking into the conduct of the high ranking revenue officials. It is nevertheless an action taken by the revenue authorities subsequent
to the interim order passed by this Court, but are all annulled to keep the proceedings with some sense of significance and semblance of sanity
particularly, the pending proceedings before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the writ Petitioner, but the writ petition cannot be
productive in changing or restoring any entries either before the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner or the Tahsildar, as again such
a direction would indicate the object of sending some significance to the revenue authorities.
It is made clear that the revenue entries are required to be indicated in the revenue records only baaed on the title, a document which clearly
show title in favour of the party claiming the entries to be made in his or her favour.
It is open to the Petitioner or the 4th Respondent to approach the Civil Court for having their rights determined.
While submission of Sri Sheshagiri, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that claim of the Petitioner for re-grant is based on the revenue entries,
that is a matter to be decided by the tribunal, hut if the 4th Respondent is claiming ownership rights independent of any other proceedings, it is for
the 4th Respondent to approach the Civil Court and it is only such title of the 4th Respondent being recognised by the Civil Court and in such
proceedings definitely, the proceedings before the authorities under the Inams Abolition Act will also have a bearing and thereafter the revenue
entries get mutated in the revenue records.
But for making these observations for quashing the proceedings subsequent to the interim order passed by this Court, no further interference is
warranted.
Writ petition is disposed of in these terms.
Rule is issued to this extent and made absolute.
Misc.W. 11903/2010 filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 151 of CPC praying to produce additional
documents and Misc.W. 9461/2010 filed u/s 151 of CPC for vacating interim order do not survive for consideration in view of the main writ
petition itself having been disposed of Both applications are dismissed.