AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioners are before this Court seeking to declare the decision taken by the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 22.2.2013-annexure-M on subjects 1 and 2 in respect of Sy. Nos. 13 & 14 pertaining to their lands in Nagareshwara Nagenahalli, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring 2 acres wherein the District Level Committee has directed respondents 3 to 4 to hold an inquiry in relation to the alleged irregularity found in the Register for issuance of grant certificate pertaining to the said lands, is without authority of law and jurisdiction and also the decision is null and void ab initio; to quash both the orders dated 13.3.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner/2nd respondent at annexures N1 and N2 as arbitrary and illegal and to issue a mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to verify and carry out phod in relation to petitioners'' land in Sy. No. 13 and 14 of Nagareshwara Nagenahalli Village of K.R. Puram measuring 2 acres each belonging to the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner who is the father of the 1st petitioner is said to have purchased 2 acres each in Sy. No. 13 and 14 under two registered sale deeds from the erstwhile grantee viz., Chanamma and Chanappa and petitioners also have moved this Court seeking for a direction to carry out mutation and other related work by the respondent authorities and also sought for change of mutation entries in the name of the 2nd petitioner. In the process, according to the petitioners, they have moved this Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to verify and to make entries in the revenue records, according to law. Despite that, since 1997 up to 2010, no such entries were made. Ultimately, according to the petitioners, during 2010 taking into consideration the fact situation, this Court had directed to carry out mutation work pursuant to the right accrued to the petitioners based on the registered sale deeds which was of the year 1996-97 and thereafter, when once again the petitioners sought for phod to be done, raising several queries, doubting the very grant itself, the authorities have passed some orders and have taken different view although the grant orders is available and maintained by the revenue department. Hence, this petition.
Heard the counsel representing the parties.
It is the submission of the petitioners'' counsel, at the first instance respondents have come out with a version that the grant itself is without any basis and it is a fraudulent grant order and it is the submission of the petitioners'' counsel that when they have fought the litigation before this Coun on more than two occasions, respondents have come out with vague allegations to undo what has been done and in WP 19545-546/2009, they have been directed to make mutation in the name of the 2nd petitioner in the revenue records. Even earlier to that, two writ petitions were filed and in WP 14078/1997 while allowing the writ petition, this Court had directed the respondent to make necessary entries in the revenue records and similarly in WP 3273/2005, the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 6.9.2004 was set aside and matter was remanded. Even in 2004 also once again despite the directions of this Court, an illegal order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner stating that the petitioners are in unauthorized possession. When the Tahsildar has reported that there was a grant order, thereafter, it appears according to the petitioners'' counsel, matter was referred to Missing Records Committee to take a decision on the ground that there is some overwriting but the records were very much in the custody of the Revenue Department. At one point of time, they come out with a stand that there are no original records available but subsequently, they have come out stating that they are available and there is overwriting. It is also submitted, any overwriting or corrections that is being made is at the instance of the Department only. Petitioners are moving this Court time and again to set right the revenue records pursuant to the registered sale deed obtained by them way back in the year 1997 itself. The respondent authorities are mechanically acting in reply that no records are available and it is a bogus grant and accordingly different stand is taken at different point of time. It is stated, there is no manipulation as per the records available throughout. The grantees have been granted two acres of land each in Sy. No. 13 and 14 in the said village and that has been entered in the RTC throughout and if at all there is any illegality, suo motu power was available to the Deputy Commissioner under S. 136(3) to take any action but, without verifying the records only on flimsy grounds are making the petitioner to move the government from pillar to post without discharging their duty in accordance with law in making necessary phod work subsequent to the entries in the RTC and mutation register. It is stated, for more than fifteen years petitioner is struggling to get the things done. In support of his contention, counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Another, to contend that there is estoppel on the part of the revenue department. In para 26 of the order, the Apex Court has observed:
It is settled law that the principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation.
Counsel has also relied upon the case of Mansaram Vs. S.P. Pathak and Others, wherein in para 12 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed "Undoubtedly power is conferred...to effectively implement public policy.... But when the power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. Exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable time." In the said case, the Apex Court has found that two years is a reasonable time. One more decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. D.R. Laxmi and Others, is relied upon wherein referring Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade, in para 9, the Apex Court has observed:
The truth of the matter is that the court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the court may refuse to quash it because of the plaintiffs lack of standing because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has waived his rights, or for some other legal reason. In any such case the Void'' order remains effective and is, in reality, valid. It follows that an order may be void for one purpose and valid for another; and that it may be void against one person but valid against another. A common case where an order, however void, becomes valid is where a statutory time limit expires after which its validity cannot be questioned. The statute does not say that the void order shall be valid; but by cutting off legal remedies it produces that result.
The contention of the petitioner''s counsel is, the stand taken by the Revenue Department from time to time is to negate the direction of this Court. He submits, despite there is a grant order, on one or the other ground, the authorities are pointing out some technical error which has occurred at the department level itself and they are not acting upon the directions of this Court to do the needful according to law Rather fifteen years have lapsed to implement the order of this Court. Only on technical ground that there is overwriting the authorities are prolonging the matter to take further decision in the matter as if there is no grant order at all. It is also contended that overwriting is not the manipulation of the petitioner rather it has occurred at the department itself for which they are responsible and the same cannot be subject matter once again to take a decision and to review the matter for the mischief committed by them, that too at this length of time and it is not as if there is no grant order or fraudulent grant rather, mere overwriting is technical and there is no insertion.
It is also submitted, way back in the year 2010 itself this Court has directed for the third time to do the needful and pursuant to that, mutation entries were carried out. Thereafter, to follow up the order to conduct phod work, respondents have taken a U turn not to do the same by stating different reason which acts as an estoppel upon them and also according to the petitioners'' counsel, it is a legitimate expectation pursuant to the order to carry out mutation and it is also evident from the record that there is grant order, and the decision to hold further inquiry in the matter is uncalled for and is against public policy.
According to the government pleader, the Register is made available now on lot of search and it is noticed that there is overwriting as to the name of grantee and extent of land granted in the Register. As there are no original grant orders, the grant itself is doubted. Since fraud vitiates everything and there is no limitation to take action if fraud is discovered, it has taken some time to place it before the Committee and accordingly, pray for dismissal of the petition.
As has transpired, since 1997 petitioner has moved this court twice to take a decision. At the level of the then Special Deputy Commissioner, the order of grant has been cancelled stating that it is a bogus grant. Subsequently, on the third occasion when a direction was issued, mutation entries have been carried out. Subsequently, petitioners applied for phoding the property. At that stage, after verifying the overwriting in respect of the name and also extent of land, an opinion is formed to refer to Missing Records Committee to verify the genuineness of the alleged grant since the case of petitioners is pending consideration. The report said to have been submitted by the Tahsildar on looking into the records is that there is a grant order in favour of the vendor of the petitioners. Might be there is some variance in the extent and the name by way of overwriting. The ratio laid down by this court consistently is that when it is found that there is a grant order, to verify the grant order as to genuineness or otherwise and to do the needful if grant made is in order. Throughout, consistently the case of the petitioners is that they have purchased two acres each in Sy. No. 13 and 14 from the erstwhile grantees for which there are records. Such being the case, it was for the respondent authority to do the needful in accordance with law. The doubts if any, needs to be entertained of course as to genuineness, within a reasonable time. As regards overwriting, it is the submission that manipulation is not by the petitioners. It appears there are some other entries which are overwritten in the Register maintained. If there are grant orders available, after verifying the same, it is for the respondent authority to do the needful, in accordance with law in respect of conducting phod work at the earliest. Accordingly, petitions are allowed in part. It is for the Deputy Commissioner to take a decision in the Committee for Missing Records at the earliest, in accordance with law.