HANUMANTHEGOWDA Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of writ petitions essentially concerns a dispute between two sets of persons and relates to S. No. 18 situated at Yerehally Village, ramanagaram Taluk. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 26909 and 13713 of 1995 claim to be the joint owners in respect of this land. It is their case that there have been rather long standing disputes between them and certain other persons who are basically the respondents, who according to the petitioners, have tried to virtually usurp the land in question. I do not propose to refer to the nature of the disputes, but suffice it to say that there have been several litigations between the parties and things have taken a rather serious turn because the petitioners contend that the respondents had originally put forward a claim to these lands and that the Tribunal by an order dated 29-12-1975, Annexure-B to the petition, had rejected their claim and that the order in question has become final. They allege that in the year 1991 the respondents, in collusion with the officials in the office of the Tahsildar of Ramanagaram and in particular a clerk by the name of Basavaiah allegedly tampered with the records of the Tribunal, destroyed the original order and created documents in order to make it appear as though the Tribunal had passed an order in their favour. It is the case of the petitioners that the officials, in collusion with respondents 4 to 11, issued Form No. 10 in favour of the respondents on 16-8-1991 which are Annexures-C, C1 and c2 to the petition and pursuant to this, the respondents 4 to 11 came to the spot along with the surveyor on 25-9-1991 to measure the land and directed the petitioner to handover possession to respondents 4 to 11.

(2.) THE petitioners contend that it was at this point of time that they approached the Tribunal and applied for a certified copy of the proceedings and that he was shocked to receive a certified copy of a so-called order indicating that occupancy rights had been granted in favour of respondents 4 to 11. What surprised the petitioner was that the certificate of registration had been issued on 16-8-1991 which was approximately 16 years after the original order is supposed to have been passed and furthermore, that copies of the relevant records were not forthcoming. In the bona fide belief that the order in question was a genuine one, the petitioner and his brother filed W. P. Nos. 22531 and 22532 of 1991 assailing the orders in question, but the two petitions came to be dismissed on the ground of laches. One factor is of some significance insofar as there is a passing observation made by the Court on the basis of the names that appeared in the certified copy that the petitioners were obviously parties to the proceedings and had knowledge of the same and that consequently a challenge after such a long lapse of time cannot be entertained. This aspect of the case assumes some importance as I shall indicate later on.

(3.) THE petitioners, thereafter requested their Advocate to ask for inspection of the records of the Tribunal at the Office of the Tahsildar and it is their case that only at this stage when inspection was taken that they found out that there was no order granting occupancy rights to the respondents 4 and 11 and that there was a wholesale tampering of the records and fabrication. They filed C. P. Nos. 159 and 160 of 1994 before the High Court, but these were also dismissed. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court by way of SLA (Civil) No. 8259/60/94 which also came to be dismissed.