Writ Petition No. 15283 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
1 WP NO.15283 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 15283 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. S.VAZEER AHMED @ VAZEER PASHA S/O. SYED ABDUL KHADER @ NANHEJAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.14/2 ACHUT MUDALIAR STREET, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. AMRITLAL P. JAIN S/O. PHUKRAJ JAIN, RESIDING AT NO.450A, 12/13, ARIHANTH SOCIETY, KESHVAPUR-KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 028. 2 . MR. AMRITLAL P. JAIN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SRI. AMRITLAL P. JAIN S/O. PHUKRAJ JAIN, RESIDING AT NO.450A, 12/13, ARIHANTH SOCIETY KESHVAPUR-KUSUGAL ROAD HUBBALLI-580 028. (BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONERS 2 WP NO.15283 of 2015 AND: 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS CITY SURVEY SOUTH RANGE K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS (ENQUIRY OFFICER), CITY SURVEY-II, K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. THE ESTATE OFFICER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SMT. SUNANDA ARUL. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 5. INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY (KARNATAKA STATE BRANCH), NO.26, RED CROSS BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, RACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI. ARVIND KAMATH, ASG FOR SRI. C. BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. K. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 28.03.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. 3 WP NO.15283 of 2015 THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.04.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CAV ORDER Petitioners have questioned the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the respondent No.1/Joint Director of Land Records in case No.CTS(B) Rev.No.17/2014-15 vide Annexure-A. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The subject matter of the petition is property bearing CTS.No.1047. Petitioners are asserting title based on Hiba dated 10.01.1977 executed by Syed Abdul Khader in favour of Vazeer Ahmed and his brothers i.e., petitioners herein. Petitioner No.2 is asserting title based on registered sale deed dated 03.11.2012 obtained in execution proceedings, based on a decree for specific performance. 4 WP NO.15283 of 2015 3. Petitioners are tracing title through their erstwhile owners. As per the petitioners' claim, Chief Commissioner, Bengaluru identified the present petition property CTS No.1047 as Sy.No.475 as per 'the map of Cantonment, Bengaluru. Petitioners refer that these proceedings were undertaken on 21.01.1870. Petitioners further claim that Mysore Gazette Notification issued by the Dewan to the then Maharaja of Mysore notified the boundaries of civil and military station way back in 1881. Petitioners are placing reliance on sale deed executed by Venkataswamy, Rangappa and Papanna in favour of one Dasappa and also in favour of one Syed Ameer. The sale deed in favour of Dasappa is dated 29.06.1888 and one in favour of Syed Ameer is dated 21.07.1912. Petitioners also refer to gift deed executed by Syed Ameer in favour of Syed Moosa on 02.08.1935. Petitioners also claim that the property further changed hands and one Syed Abdul Khader @ Nanhejan secured title pursuant to gift deed executed by 5 WP NO.15283 of 2015 Syed Moosa on 06.11.1962 and Syed Abdul Khader in-turn gifted this property to petitioner No.1 - Vazeer Ahmed. 4. Per contra, respondent No.3 has also tried to lay a claim over the petition property. Respondent No.3 asserts that it acquired about 600 acres of waste land inclusive of the disputed subject matter in CTS No.1047. Respondent No.3 specifically claimed that the then British Government completed the acquisition in 1900 by paying compensation to the Maharaja of Mysore. Citing Railway Circular dated 12.10.1881, respondent No.3 asserts that petition property was subject matter of acquisition. Questioning the sale deed executed by Venkataswamy, Rangappa and Papanna, respondent No.3 has pointed out that the boundaries in the said sale deed indicate that in the said sale deed, there is no existence of railway track. The respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor along with District Engineer of Madras on 05.09.1938 which depict that the land was acquired by 6 WP NO.15283 of 2015 British Government in 1900. Citing the said sketch, respondent No.3 claimed that Sy.No.2 which concerns petition property is nowhere situated near the property acquired by Railways bearing CTS.No.1047. Respondent No.3 claimed that Sy.No.2 which is located at Bilekahalli is not at all abutting to the railway property and therefore, the property purchased by the petitioners and the present petition property owned by Railways are two distinct properties. Respondent No.3 has strongly refuted the petitioners claim that CTS.No.1047 is abutting Thimmaiah Road. 5. Respondent No.3 on the contrary claimed that the then Maharaha of Mysore has delivered entire land occupied by Bangalore-Madras Branch Railway including petition property bearing CTS.No.1047. While disputing the gift deed executed by one Syed Moosa on 06.11.1962,
Legal Reasoning
respondent No.3 claimed for the first time that in the schedule, the property of railway is indicated towards 7 WP NO.15283 of 2015 Eastern side. Therefore, respondent No.3 claimed that Enquiry Officer contrary to records has rejected the claim of respondent No.3 and this rejection is based on the judgment rendered in O.S.No.2977/2006 and the order passed in execution proceedings in E.P.No.432/2013. The respondent No.3 claimed that respondent No.2/Enquiry Officer failed to take cognizance of the village map issued by Assistant Director of Land Records. Respondent No.3 has also pointed out that based on description in execution petition and delivery warrant dated 31.05.2014, respondent No.2/Enquiry Officer has carved out a portion measuring 3,509.62 Sq.Mtrs. in CTS.No.1047 and has assigned a new CTS.No.1047/2 and this property is now notified to be owned by petitioners. 6. Respondent No.3 claims to be aggrieved by the manipulation of land records in the revenue department and a complaint is lodged against the respondent No.2/Enquiry Officer before the Lokayuktha. Respondent No.3 while 8 WP NO.15283 of 2015 justifying the conclusion recorded by respondent No.1/JDLR claimed that respondent No.1 being an Appellate Authority has re-examined the records and respondent No.1 was justified in passing the order which is impugned in the captioned petition reversing the order of the respondent No.2/Enquiry Officer. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Learned Senior Counsel Sri. K.G.Raghavan appearing for the petitioners has extensively canvassed his arguments referring to all minute details in support of petitioners contention. Written synopsis is also filed by the petitioners. 8. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri. Arvind Kamath appearing for respondent No.3/Railways has also extensively addressed his arguments and written synopsis is filed. He has cited the following judgments: 1. Garment Craft v.Prakash Chand Goel, [(2022) 4 SCC 181)] 2. Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., 9 WP NO.15283 of 2015 [(2001) 8 SCC 97] 3. Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors. [(2024) 5 SCC 481] 9. Based on rival contentions, this Court is called upon to examine as to whether the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 10. Having meticulously examined the writ papers and statement of objections and synopsis filed by the respective counsels, following point would arise for consideration: 1) Whether respondent No.1 erred in reversing a well- considered order passed by respondent No.2 which was preceded by a spot inspection and therefore, the order impugned warrants interference at the hands of this Court? 10 WP NO.15283 of 2015 Findings: 11. The subject matter of this petition is property bearing CTS.No.1047/2. Petitioners are tracing title based on a decree obtained in a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.2977/2006, followed by a sale deed executed by Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in favour of petitioner No.2 vide order dated 03.11.2012. Petitioners in the writ petition have narrated the flow of title. For the sake of convenience the flow of title of the petitioners and respondents is produced below in the form of a table: Petitioners Respondents Venkataswamy, Rangappa and Assistant Director of Land Pappanna sold portion of property in Records identifying CTS No.1047 as Sy.No.475 measuring 235 ft east- Railways property vide order dated west and 165 ft north-south to Syed 18.04.1976 evidenced at Annexure- Ameer via registered sale deed dated B 21.07.1912 evidenced at Annexure-V is as under: "East - Remaining own land; West - Kere Kodi; 11 WP NO.15283 of 2015 North - Kunte Mane Bande and Water Kunte; South - Miller Kere Kunte;" Syed Ameer executed registered gift deed of petition property bearing Sy.No.2, measuring East to West - 235 ft. and North to South - 165 dated 02.08.1935 in favour of Syed Moosa. Schedule as per gift deed evidenced at Annexure-W is as under: "East - Remaining own land; West - Kere Kodi; North - Kunte Mane Bande and Water Kunte; South - Miller Kere Kunte;" Syed Moosa executed registered gift deed of petition property bearing Sy.No.2, measuring East - 235 ft., West - 235 ft., North - 165 ft. and South - 165 ft. dated 06.11.1962 in favour of Syed Abdul evidenced at Annexure-X is as under: "East - Petitioner property and Railway Property; West - Road and Railway Property; North - N. Kuntumare Bande and Water Kunte; South - Road and Miller tank;" 12 WP NO.15283 of 2015 Syed Abdul executed Hiba of petition property bearing Sy. No.2 measuring East - 235 ft., West - 235 ft., North - 165 ft. and South - 165 ft., dated 10.01.1977 in favour of S. Vazeer Ahmed and his brother evidenced at Annexure-Y is as under: "East - Land and Corporation property; West - Road and Railway Property; North - Bande and Railway Property; South - Thimmaiah Road;" S. Vazeer Ahmed and his brother executed registered partition deed dated 02.03.1994 in which petition property was allotted in favour of S.Vazeer Ahmed . S.Vazeer Ahmed executed deed of absolute sale of petition property bearing Sy.No.2, measuring East to West 235' feet, North to South 165' feet in favour of M. Amritlal P. Jain dated 30.11.2012 evidenced at 13 WP NO.15283 of 2015 Annexure-Z is as under: "East - Corporation property now KSFC; West - Road and Railway Property; North - Kuntumane Sunda and Railway Property; South - Thimmaiah Road;" 12. Petitioners assert that the property was originally owned by one Venkataswamy, Rangappa and Pappanna who sold a portion of the petition property in favour of one Dasappa vide registered sale deed dated 29.06.1888 which is evidenced at Annexure-T. Petitioners also claimed that remaining portion was sold by the very same owners in favour one Syed Ameer under registered sale deed dated 21.07.1912 which is evidenced at Annexure-V. Petitioners have further claimed that there was a gift deed in 1935 followed by a further gift deed executed by one Syed Abdul in 1977 which are evidenced at Annexures-W and Y respectively. Petitioner No.2 is tracing title through petitioner No.1. 14 WP NO.15283 of 2015 13. The property in dispute, bearing CTS No.1047, forms the nucleus of the present litigation. The petitioners contend that this property originally formed part of Survey No.475 of Bilekahalli Village, which, according to them, was subsequently integrated into the broader jurisdiction of the Cantonment, Bengaluru. In support of this contention, petitioners place significant reliance on a historical map dated 21.01.1870, which is annexed as Annexure-S. According to the petitioners, this map not only delineates the geographical boundaries of the then Cantonment area but also illustrates the inclusion of certain peripheral villages into the Cantonment, among which Bilekahalli Village is shown to be one such integrated unit. It is their case that this inclusion occurred at an undisputed historical point in time, thereby bringing the land in Survey No.475 under the administrative and territorial control of the Cantonment. 15 WP NO.15283 of 2015 14. In furtherance of their claim, the petitioners have attempted to trace the ownership of the said property through successive transactions originating from the erstwhile owner, Venkataswamy and his brothers. It is specifically asserted that Venkataswamy and his brothers were in possession of a residential building constructed on Survey No.475. To substantiate this fact, the petitioners rely on an official order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, which permitted the demolition of the existing structure on the property. This order, according to the petitioners, was passed upon application by their predecessors-in-title, who sought formal permission to demolish the structure and is evidenced at Annexure-C. This document is a vital piece of evidence, as it establishes not only the existence of a residential structure on the property but also official acknowledgment of the applicants’ lawful possession and ownership. It is the petitioners’ case 16 WP NO.15283 of 2015 that pursuant to the said permission, the structure was duly demolished. 15. To reinforce the legitimacy of their title and possession, the petitioners have produced several registered sale deeds. These documents form the bedrock of their claim and are relied upon to establish a clear and continuous chain of title. The petitioners contend that the property held by them, including the portion bearing CTS No.1047, is described in these documents with specific reference to its physical boundaries and surrounding landmarks. According to the petitioners, these boundary details are critical, as they not only affirm the location of their property but also demonstrate that it does not fall within the area that was at any point in time acquired or allotted by the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore in favour of the Railways. 17 WP NO.15283 of 2015 16. In this regard, particular attention is drawn to the boundary descriptions recorded in the title deeds. The northern boundary is stated to abut a land referred to as Kunte Mane Bande, while the southern boundary is identified as Miller Road, which is later known as Thimmaiah Road. These boundary references, according to the petitioners, are significant markers and provide definitive geographic context to establish that the property in question lies outside the area historically associated with or allotted to the Railways. 17. Importantly, the petitioners assert that respondent No.2, while passing the order that favoured them, conducted a thorough spot inspection and meticulously examined these boundaries and the associated title documents. It is their grievance that this well-reasoned and factually grounded order has been arbitrarily reversed by respondent No.1. According to the petitioners, this reversal has occurred not on the strength of evidence or 18 WP NO.15283 of 2015 proper application of mind but rather under undue pressure and intimidation exercised by respondent No.3, who allegedly lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta and facilitated the publication of several adverse media reports to cast aspersions on the order passed by respondent No.2. 18. I have minutely scrutinized the records relating to the above-mentioned allegations. It is evident from the materials placed on record that respondent No.3, which is the Railways, lodged a formal complaint against respondent No.2 before the Upa-Lokayukta. This complaint, forming a crucial part of the petitioners’ grievance, is produced at Annexure-R. In addition to this, a series of media reports and press articles appear to have been published contemporaneously in prominent newspapers such as Deccan Herald, Bangalore Mirror, Economic Times, and Prajavani. These publications, according to the petitioners, were influenced or instigated by the officials of respondent No.3, with a view to creating pressure on the 19 WP NO.15283 of 2015 authorities and thereby discrediting the order passed by respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioners. These press materials are enclosed at Annexures-M, N, O, and P. The coordinated manner in which the complaint was lodged with the Upa-Lokayukta and the media coverage that followed lends some credence to the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that there has been an orchestrated attempt by respondent No.3 to interfere with the due process of law. 19. Respondent No.3, namely the Railways, bases its claim over the disputed property on an administrative order said to have been passed by respondent No.2 on 18.04.1976. This order is enclosed as Annexure-B. The order, rendered vide Annexure-B, records certain observations made during a local and oral spot inspection. It includes a reference to the property being identified as belonging to the Railways based on oral statements made during the inspection. However, this order, while suggestive, lacks supporting documentary evidence to 20 WP NO.15283 of 2015 establish formal title. The reliance placed by respondent No.3 on this single document is, in the opinion of this Court, wholly insufficient to displace the voluminous title documents relied upon by the petitioners. 20. Further scrutiny of Annexure-B reveals that the order merely notes that the property was "ascertained on the spot orally and locally" as belonging to the Railways. Such an observation, without corroborating title documents, cannot be the sole basis to sustain a claim of ownership, particularly when weighed against the multiple registered sale deeds, gift deeds, and other official documents placed on record by the petitioners. Thus, the foundation of respondent No.3’s claim appears fragile and unsupported by concrete evidence, particularly in the context of the disputed CTS No.1047. Before delving deeper into the implications of this document, I find it necessary to extract the relevant portion of the order for proper understanding and clarity: 21 WP NO.15283 of 2015 ZÁ°Û £ÀA§gÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæ ºÀ¼Éà £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀiÁ¥À£À CxÀªÁ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉ, PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »¸Áì £ÀA§gÀÄ 4 - 242 284 D¹Û zsÁgÀPÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ (C) ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄAvÉ CxÀªÁ E£ÁߪÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ »vÁ¸ÀQÛAiÀÄļÀî ªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ (§.PÀ.EvÁå¢) Not known w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ eÁjAiÀiÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ (§) ªÀ»ªÁnzÁgÀj UÉ EvÁå¢ (§) D¹ÛUÀ½UÉ Notice could not be served PÀ®A £ÀA.4 gÀ°èAiÀÄ C.§.PÀ EvÁå¢AiÀ ĪÀgÀÄUÀ¼À °è ºÁdjzÀÝ ªÀgÀÄ Non Repr esen ted £ÀPÉë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¼ÀvÉUÀ¼À £ÀÄß CAVÃPÀj ¸À®ànÖzÉAi ÉÄà CxÀªÁ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr A/c CAwªÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ D¹Û ¸ÀASÉå £ÉÆ AzÀ t ±ÀÄ® Ì PÀ.¨sÀÆ.PÀA. ¤¢ü 154 gÀAvÉ ºÉaÑ£À ±ÀĮ̪ÉãÁzÀ gÀÄ «¢ü¹zÉAiÉÄà ±ÀÄ®Ì ¨sÀj¹zÀÝ PÉÌ gÀ¹Ã¢ ¸ÀASÉå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁA PÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ vÀgÀºÀ C.§. EvÁå¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁrUÉ CxÀªÁ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 102 17 - - - g PÀA 1 wêÀiÁð£À D¹ÛzÁgÀPÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ, ºÀQÌ£À CqÀªÀiÁ£À UÉÃtÂ, EvÀgÉà ºÉZÀÄѪÀj CxÀªÁ D¹Û zsÁgÀPÀgÀ IÄt¨sÁgÀ EvÁå¢ JA¢¤AzÀ PÀqÀvÀzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ £ÀqÉ¢zÉ JA§ ªÀiÁ»w wêÀiÁ ð£ÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ªÀÅ eÁjAiÀi ÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ is the This Railway property as ascertained on the spot orally and locally 21. Upon a thorough perusal of the order dated 18.04.1976, annexed at Annexure-B, it becomes evident that the claim of respondent No.3/Railways is primarily predicated on a general assertion made in the said order, which states that the property in question is “Railway property as ascertained on the spot orally and locally.” However, this Court finds that such an assertion, absent corroboration by any legally acceptable title documents, cannot form the basis of a sustainable claim of ownership over the disputed property bearing CTS.No.1047. While respondent No.3 has relied upon a land plan prepared by the District Engineer of M & SMR Company Limited dated 05.09.1938, no supporting documentary evidence has been 22 WP NO.15283 of 2015 placed on record to show that this property was in fact acquired by the Railways from the erstwhile Maharaja or any other competent authority. In contrast, the petitioners have produced several registered documents including sale deeds and gift deeds which trace the chain of title to the property in question. Further, the Court takes note of the press articles and the complaint lodged with the Upa- Lokayukta (Annexure-R) as forming part of a larger pattern of conduct exhibited by respondent No.3 to assert a claim without supporting it with substantive proof. Respondent No.3 has, in fact, conceded that a portion of the land admeasuring 1,037 square meters is owned by the Indian Red Cross Society and has acknowledged their title. Yet, in an inexplicable and contradictory stance, respondent No.3 has claimed that the remaining portion of the very same CTS.No.1047 falls within the boundaries of Railway property. This contradiction is not reconcilable in law or on facts. 23 WP NO.15283 of 2015 22. A meticulous scrutiny of the land plan, placed on record at Annexure-J, relating to the land acquisitions undertaken by the Railways in the year 1935-36, reveals that the triangle-shaped portion corresponding to Sy.No.475 and CTS.No.1047 falls outside the land acquired by the Railways. The boundaries indicated in the said land plan clearly demarcate the extent of land acquired, and CTS.No.1047 is demonstrably situated beyond those limits. Therefore, the claim made by respondent No.3 that the entire CTS.No.1047 formed part of the original acquisition dating back to 1880 is wholly unfounded and unsubstantiated. The map at Annexure-S, which is relied upon by both petitioners and respondent No.3, distinctly identifies CTS.No.1047 as a single, compact block of land demarcated by clear boundaries. Given the admission by respondent No.3 that a portion of this land is held by the Red Cross and its corresponding title is accepted, the assertion that the remaining portion alone falls within 24 WP NO.15283 of 2015 Railway limits is inherently flawed. The said claim is devoid of any documentary support or credible explanation. 23. The records reveal that respondent No.2, upon conducting a detailed spot inspection, arrived at a reasoned conclusion and proceeded to bifurcate CTS.No.1047 into two parts: one part, designated as CTS.No.1047/1, was assigned to the Red Cross, and the other part, designated as CTS.No.1047/2, was assigned to petitioner No.2. This bifurcation was done following due procedure and was based on physical demarcation and ownership claims supported by registered title documents. The decision of respondent No.2 thus stands fortified by both legal reasoning and factual verification through spot inspection. 24. It is now imperative to examine whether respondent No.1, while exercising appellate powers, conducted an independent and thorough assessment of the available records before reversing the order passed by 25 WP NO.15283 of 2015 respondent No.2. Unfortunately, this Court finds that respondent No.1 has failed to undertake any such detailed examination. The petitioners have rightly raised apprehensions that respondent No.1 may have been influenced or intimidated by respondent No.3’s conduct, including the filing of a complaint before the Upa-Lokayukta against respondent No.2. It is apparent from the record that respondent No.1 has merely relied on superficial reasoning and has overturned respondent No.2’s order without critically analyzing the extensive documentary evidence produced by the petitioners or undertaking an independent spot inspection. Instead, respondent No.1 has accepted the oral assertion of respondent No.3 and concluded that the property in question belongs to the Railways, despite the absence of credible title documents. 25. The legal precedents cited by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 do not advance their case and are clearly inapplicable to the facts and issues arising in the 26 WP NO.15283 of 2015 present writ petition. The central question that arises for determination is whether respondent No.1, acting as an appellate authority, has applied judicial mind and exercised due diligence in appreciating the material on record before reversing the order passed by respondent No.2, as evidenced at Annexure-H. Upon careful review, this Court finds that respondent No.1 has neither examined the voluminous title documents relied upon by the petitioners nor undertaken a proper assessment of the legal right or title claimed by respondent No.3. The claim of respondent No.3 is solely founded on an administrative note (Annexure-B), which merely states that the property is Railway land based on oral and local inspection, without producing any substantive documentary proof. Such a claim cannot override registered title deeds in the petitioners’ favour. 26. This Court is constrained to observe that respondent No.1 has abdicated its responsibility as an 27 WP NO.15283 of 2015 appellate authority by failing to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into the ownership and title of the disputed property. The order impugned in this petition appears to have been passed under extraneous pressure exerted by respondent No.3, which is evident from the chain of events, including the complaint to the Upa-Lokayukta and publication of multiple press articles. Respondent No.1 failed to examine whether the land plan prepared in 1938 by the District Engineer included the disputed property within the Railway acquisition. Furthermore, crucial documents such as the Gazette Notification at Annexure-J and corresponding maps were not scrutinized in the depth required. Respondent No.2’s order, on the other hand, gains legitimacy and reliability for being based on a prior spot inspection and supported by documents of title. If respondent No.1 sought to reverse that order, it was incumbent upon them to either conduct an independent 28 WP NO.15283 of 2015 spot inspection or call for additional verification to determine the correct title status of the land. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the enquiry undertaken by respondent No.1 is grossly inadequate and suffers from non-application of mind. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the reversal of the well-reasoned order of respondent No.2 was not based on merit, but rather appears to have been prompted by undue influence and external pressure from respondent No.3/Railways. Respondent No.3 has not only failed to substantiate its title to the entire extent of CTS.No.1047, but has also provided no plausible explanation as to how it could claim title to one part of the property while admitting ownership of another portion by the Red Cross. This internal inconsistency significantly undermines respondent No.3’s case. Accordingly, this Court
Decision
finds that the impugned order is not a reasoned or speaking order, and it does not stand to judicial scrutiny. The 29 WP NO.15283 of 2015 appellate authority has failed to address the relevant contentions and has ignored the material placed on record by the petitioners. In the absence of substantive title documents supporting the claim of respondent No.3, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. The point formulated above is answered in the affirmative. 28. The assertion made by respondent No.3, alleging that the petitioners have fraudulently inserted CTS No.1047 while obtaining the sale deed in Execution Petition No.432/2013, is wholly misconceived and untenable within the limited scope of survey proceedings. It is a well-settled principle that allegations of fraud and disputes pertaining to title are matters that lie within the exclusive domain of a competent civil court and cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings of a summary and administrative nature such as those conducted by the survey authorities. Survey proceedings are limited in their scope to the identification, demarcation, and recording of existing physical boundaries 30 WP NO.15283 of 2015 based on documentary evidence; they are not forums for determining ownership rights or adjudicating complex claims involving allegations of fraud. 29. In the present case, respondent No.3 has not demonstrated any locus standi to contest the proceedings. No substantive title document or revenue record has been produced by respondent No.3 to establish any right, interest, or entitlement over the subject property. The only material relied upon by respondent No.3 is the order dated 18.04.1976 (Annexure-B), which contains a generalized and unverified claim that the property is “Railway property,” based on local and oral ascertainment. Such a claim, devoid of legal proof or registered title, does not confer standing upon respondent No.3 to challenge the execution of the sale deed or to obstruct the lawful demarcation process initiated by the petitioners. 31 WP NO.15283 of 2015 30. Furthermore, the chain of title documents produced by the petitioners, dating back to 1935, consistently describe the property as being bounded on the north by Kunte Mane Bande and on the south by Miller Tank and later Thimmaiah Road. In the more recent title documents, including the registered sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2, the southern boundary is described as Miller Road/Thimmaiah Road. This variation in nomenclature is not indicative of any fraudulent intent but rather reflects the natural evolution of geographical markers and urban infrastructure over time. Importantly, respondent No.2, the competent authority responsible for land survey and mapping, has, after examining the petitioners’ title documents, correctly identified the disputed property and confirmed its location corresponding to CTS No.1047. 31. Accordingly, the plea of fraud raised by respondent No.3, in the absence of any credible evidence 32 WP NO.15283 of 2015 and outside the permissible scope of the present proceedings, cannot be entertained and deserves to be disregarded. The matter before the survey authorities is confined solely to the technical and factual exercise of demarcating the property based on registered and long- standing documentary evidence, which the petitioners have amply supplied. Any dispute as to ownership or allegations of fraud must, if at all, be raised in appropriate civil proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction. 32. Upon a comprehensive analysis of the material placed on record, it becomes evident that the petitioners have meticulously traced their title to the disputed property bearing CTS No.1047 through an unbroken chain of registered title documents commencing from the year 1888. The petitioners assert that the original title vested with one Venkataswamy, Rangappa, and Pappanna, who executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Dasappa on 29.06.1888, covering a portion of the land in Sy.No.475, 33 WP NO.15283 of 2015 Bilekahalli Village, which is evidenced at Annexure-T. Subsequently, by a further registered sale deed dated 21.07.1912, the remaining portion was sold to one Syed Ameer, as evidenced at Annexure-V. Thereafter, the property changed hands through a series of duly registered and legally valid conveyances starting with a registered gift deed by Syed Ameer in favour of Syed Moosa dated 02.08.1935 (Annexure-W), followed by another registered gift deed by Syed Moosa to Syed Abdul dated 06.11.1962 (Annexure-X), and a hiba deed by Syed Abdul in favour of S.Vazeer Ahmed and his brother on 10.01.1977 (Annexure- Y). This was followed by a registered partition deed dated 02.03.1994, in which the subject property was allotted exclusively to S.Vazeer Ahmed, culminating in the execution of a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2 by Amritlal P. Jain on 03.11.2012 (Annexure-Z). The petitioners’ claim is further bolstered by a decree obtained in O.S.No.2977/2006 for specific performance, which was 34 WP NO.15283 of 2015 implemented through the execution of a sale deed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on 03.11.2012. 33. This unbroken lineage of registered documents evidences lawful ownership and continuous devolution of title in favour of the petitioners. By contrast, respondent No.3/Railways bases its claim solely on an order dated 18.04.1976 passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records (Annexure-B), which contains a vague and unsubstantiated statement to the effect that the property was identified as “Railway property as ascertained on the spot orally and locally.” Such a mere oral assertion, unsupported by any registered title deed, survey record, or legally tenable evidence, falls short of establishing ownership or possessory rights. 34. In these circumstances, respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the authorities statutorily vested with the 35 WP NO.15283 of 2015 responsibility of demarcating and assigning property numbers, are legally bound to undertake the demarcation, identification, and assignment of a CTS number in accordance with the petitioners’ documentary title. Their failure to do so, especially in the face of such title documents presented by the petitioners, would amount to arbitrary denial of rights lawfully acquired and evidenced through legally valid instruments of conveyance. 35. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 20.03.2015 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside; 36 WP NO.15283 of 2015 (iii) The order dated 04.07.2014 passed in No.EOCS.2/MV.02/2012-13 by respondent No.2 as per Annexure – H is hereby confirmed; (iv) Pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA