Writ Petition No. 29223 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13140 WP No. 29223 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 29223 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNIRA BEGUM W/O LATE AMEER SIRAJUDDIN KHAN AGE MAJOR R/O MUSLIM BLOCK, MUSLIM TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105. (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB DIVISION, HUNSUR DISTRICT, MYSORE - 571 105. 4. THE TAHASILDAR HUNSUR DISTRICT, MYSORE - 571 105.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13140 WP No. 29223 of 2017 IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED:8.3.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY R-3 IN RA.NO.157/2004-05 DATED.30.12.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-J, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.15/6 was granted to the husband of the petitioner under a temporary grant vide TDR.70/49-50. On the death of the petitioner’s husband, at the request of the petitioner, the revenue entries were mutated in the name of the petitioner vide MR.No.31/02-03. 2. This order was challenged by one T.Harish by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short, referred to as “the Act”) and the said appeal was allowed and the order of mutation in favour of the petitioner was set aside, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13140 WP No. 29223 of 2017 which was challenged by way of revision under Section 136(3) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the revision. As a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order has clearly recorded a finding that the land in question was granted to the petitioner’s husband temporarily for a period of 5 years vide order TDR.70/1949-50. He has, however, gone on to state that thereafter there had been no proceedings for confirmation of grant and the permanent saguvali chit had not been issued and the entries were continued only on the basis of temporary grant. He has concluded that since there was no permanent grant in favour of petitioner’s husband, the entries in the revenue record could not have been mutated in favour of the petitioner and has therefore allowed the revision. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13140 WP No. 29223 of 2017 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that though the land was granted temporarily to the husband of the petitioner, proceedings for confirmation of this grant were initiated and mahazar were drawn by the revenue authorities to the effect that petitioner’s husband was in possession. He relies upon Annexures-F, G and H to substantiate his contention. 5. A perusal of the mahazar recorded in Annexure-F would confirm the fact that the proceedings for confirmation of grant was taken up and it has also been recorded therein that the petitioner’s husband was in possession. 6. Annexure-G is the communication addressed to the Assistant Commissioner by the Tahsildar which reads as under: "NO.NDIS TDR 7038/49-50 Enclose records Date:24.01.1982 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13140 WP No. 29223 of 2017 To, The Assistant Commissioner Sub Division Hunur. Sir, Sub: Confirmation of G.M.F grants in Sy.No.15 of waranchi village, Reg Ref: 1] Memo No.NDIS R2, Land I 1262/75-76 dated:25-02-1976 of the Special Deputy Commissioner Mysore. 2] Your Office Memo No.LND(L) 5/80-81 dated:21-01-81 I write to state that the observation made by the special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore in his memo cited (1) above has been attended and a detailed report submitted vide this office letter of even No. dated 29-07-1978. Hence, I request you to kindly peruse and submit the same." 7. As could be seen from the above, the proposal to confirm the temporary grant was under active consideration by the revenue authorities, however, no confirmation was actually made. 8. Rule 23 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules reads as follows: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13140 WP No. 29223 of 2017 "23. Confirmation of lands to persons to whom the lands have been leased temporarily.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules.- (1) Where, before the commencement of these rules agricultural lands were leased temporarily to any person for purposes of cultivation and the lease contemplated the subsequent grant of the land to the lessee and all the conditions of the lease have been complied with, such lands may be granted to the lessee by the Deputy Commissioner on payment of the price fixed by him in accordance with rules under which the lands were leased. (2) Where, after the coming into force of these rules, lands have been leased temporarily for cultivation and the lessee has fulfilled all the terms of the lease, such land may be granted to the lessee on payment of the price fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, if the lessee is either a landless person or an insufficient holder. (3) Where the period of lease has expired and proposals for grant of land to the lessee are under consideration the period of lease may be deemed to have been extended till such time as orders are passed by the Deputy Commissioner on such proposals." - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13140 WP No. 29223 of 2017 9. As could be seen from Rule 23 (3) of said Rules, whether the lands were granted prior to commencement of Land Grant Rules or after the commencement of Rules, if the proposals made for grant of land are under consideration, the period of lease would be deemed to have been extended till such time as orders are passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 10. In light of fact that the documents produced by the petitioner indicate that proposal for confirmation of grant were pending consideration, in law, the lease is deemed to have been extended. Consequently, the findings of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner had no right over the land on the basis of temporary lease cannot be accepted. 11. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the Deputy Commissioner is directed to conclude the proceedings initiated for confirmation of grant which - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13140 WP No. 29223 of 2017 were made in favour of petitioner’s husband as per Annexures-F and G. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the Deputy Commissioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Decision
12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47