Writ Petition No. 13154 of 2024 · The High Court · 2024
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 13154 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O MUNIYAPPA GRANDSON OF SMT LAKSHMMAMMA @ LAGUMA DEVI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SRI RAMANJINAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA GRANDSON OF SMT LAKSHMMAMMA @ LAGUMA DEVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. SHIVABALSWAMY S/O MUNIYAPPA GRANDSON OF SMT LAKSHMMAMMA @ LAGUMA DEVI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.75 NEAR GANGAMMA TEMPLE MAHADEVPURA, BANGALORE-560 048. (BY SRI. B.S.JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISISONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE THASHILDAR BENAGALURU TALUK EAST K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560 016. 4. KARNATAKA BACKWARD CLASSESS WELFATE DEPARMTENT NO.16/D, 3RD FLOOR DEVARAJ URS BHAVAN VASANTHNAGAR BENGALURU-01. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25TH APRIL 2024, PASSED BY KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.135/2022 (ANNEXURE-R) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure-R) in Rev. Appeal No.135/2022 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru and the order dated 04.12.2015 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No.2, reserving the land in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioners have also sought for setting aside the MR-H11/2015-2016 dated 04.12.2015 (Annexure-J) issued by the respondent No.3. 2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this petition are that one Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o Muniswamy (grandmother of the petitioners) claims to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.175/1 measuring 11 guntas of Mahadevpura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli Bangalore East. The name of Smt. Lakshmamma is found in the records of Mysore Revision Settlement Register for the year 24.06.1965, as per Annexure-A. It is also stated by the petitioners that after the grant of land made in favour of the petitioners, RTC extracts stand in the name of Smt. Lakshmamma and thereafterwords - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR in the name of petitioners as per Annexure-B. The Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crop Inspection Report (Annexure-C) stand in the name of original grantee-Lakshmamma. In the meanwhile the petitioners came to know that the land in question has been identified as 'Sarkari Pada' on account of non-payment of land revenue by the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners made an application (Annexure-D) seeking removal of the entry as 'Sarkari Pada' in the revenue records. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 herein has addressed the letter dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure-E) to respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioners insofar as the land in question is concerned. It is also forthcoming insofar as the report of the Deputy Tahsildar as per Annexure-F with regard to non-payment of the land revenue by the petitioners. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 by order dated 04.12.2015 has allotted the subject land in favour of respondent No.4 for the purpose of construction of the hostel. The said order of allotment at Annexure-H is impugned in this writ petition. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.06.2016 at Annexure-K, has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners herein have not made any application to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR remove the 'Pada' in the revenue entries before the actual date i.e. December 2014 and accordingly, the jurisdictional Tahsildar was directed to take a decision in the matter. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 has passed an order as per Annexure-M, stating that the petitioners have no legal right insofar as the land in question claiming unauthorized occupancy and accordingly addressed the proceedings to respondent No.2 to take decision in the matter. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Rev. Appeal No.135/2022 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by order dated 25.04.2024, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri. B.S.Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel Sri.B.S.Jeevan Kumar appearing for the petitioners that as per Annexure-A, the land has been granted in favour of the petitioners and the revenue records stand in the name of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR petitioners as per Annexures-B and C respectively. He further contended by referring to Annexure-D that the grandchildren of the original grantee Lakshmamma had made an application to respondent No.2 to remove the name in the revenue records as 'Pada' and thereafter, the said application made by the petitioners herein was forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3. In this aspect of the matter, he invite the attention of the Court to the order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-K to the writ petition and submits that in view of non-payment of land revenue within the stipulated period, the rejection order has been passed by the competent authority and the same has not been considered by respondent No.2 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order at Annexure-R. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha, by its President & Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Land Revenue & Ors. reported in ILR 2010 KAR 1499 and argued that there is no impediment for the revenue authorities for restoration of the forfeited land to the defaulters/petitioners herein on payment of arrears of land revenue is concerned. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR 5. Per contra, learned AGA Smt. Navya Shekhar appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and further contended that since the petitioners herein have not made the requisite land revenue within the stipulated period i.e. December, 2014, the respondent-authorities have validly forfeited the land in question and therefore, sought to sustain the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the writ papers it would indicate that as per Mysore Revision Settlement Register provided at Annexure-A, it is not in dispute that the land has been granted in favour of the grandmother of the petitioners. Thereafter, the RTC extracts have been mutated in favour of the original grantee/Lakshmamma (grandmother of the petitioners herein). The petitioners herein have made an application at Annexure-D seeking removal of entry in the RTC extracts which is evident that on account of non-payment of revenue, it is shown as 'Sarkari Pada'. The - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR said application made by the petitioners herein at Annexure-D, has been forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 to take a decision in the matter. Thereafter, in the proceedings in LND(A)CR.01/2015-16 Annexure-K wherein, respondent No.2 herein, has justified the entry made in the revenue records stating that the petitioners herein have not paid the land revenue before December, 2014 and accordingly, respondent No.3 was directed to take note of the actual aspects of the matter concerned. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has passed an order dated 23.11.2017 at Annexure-M that there is no entry in the index of grant pertaining to 'Sarkari Pada' in respect of the subject land concerned. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court and this Court vide order dated 02.03.2022 at Annexure-Q in W.P.No.12444 of 2018 directed the petitioners herein to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for redressal of their grievance. In that view of the matter, the petitioners herein preferred Rev. Appeal No.135/2022 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal passed an order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure-R), rejected the claim made by the petitioners herein stating that, the petitioners were in unauthorized cultivation of the land in question and also made - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR an observation that the petitioners have to establish their right insofar as the land in question is concerned at paragraph No.13(vii) in the impugned order. Having taken note of the said aspect of the matter, the petitioners herein have produced Annexure-A, wherein the name of the grandmother of the petitioners is shown as grantee in the Mysore Revision Settlement Register and thereafter, the RTC extracts from 1966 onwards show the name of grandmother of the petitioners as owner of the land in question. 7. In that view of the matter, by taking into consideration the order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-K wherein, the petitioners herein have not paid the land revenue before December, 2014, the revenue extracts have been changed as 'Sarkari Pada' and therefore, I am of the view that finding recorded by respondent No.2 and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Rev. Appeal No.135/2022 requires to be set aside in this writ petition. It is also made clear that as the petitioners herein have produced Annexure-A and the RTC extracts would demonstrate that the land in question has been granted in favour of the grandmother of the petitioners herein - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR are concerned and after unreasonable period, respondent No.3, would not have ventured to state that the land in question has not been granted in favour of the petitioners concerned. 8. In that view of the matter, since revenue records produced by the petitioners would demonstrate that the land in question is in possession of the original grantee from 1966 and upon demise of the original grantee, the grandchildren of Lakshmamma, the petitioners herein are in possession of the land in question. In view of the matter, taking into account the declaration of the land made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case referred to above, I am of the view that the revenue authorities ought to have condoned the delay in making the land revenue insofar as the land in question is concerned. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i) The petition is allowed; ii) Impugned order dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure- R) in Rev. Appeal No.135/2022, the order dated - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:22657 WP No. 13154 of 2024 HC-KAR 04.12.2015 (Annexure-H) passed by respondent No.2 and the mutation dated 04.12.2015 (Annexure-J) issued by respondent No.3 are hereby set aside; iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 to accept the land revenue if any, arrears, from the petitioners herein with interest thereon accrued with respect to the same, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records accordingly. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59