K N MANJUNATH Vs. R P LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO acres of land in sy. Nos. 7/3 and 10/2 of beekanahalli village of somwarpet taluk was granted by the tahsildar in favour of the appellant herein on 29-4-1977 and saguvali chit was also issued on 10-12-1980. When the appellant went near the land granted in his favour, respondent 1 objected on the ground that the same land was also granted in his favour on 13-9-1968. Since the appellant entertained a doubt in regard to the grant of very same land in favour of two parties, appellant approached the tahsildar, tahsildar conducted a detailed enquiry and held that no land was granted in favour of respondent 1 in 1968. It was also held by him that the document produced by respondent 1 has got up and fabricated document. Ultimately he also requested lokayukta to hold an enquiry against the persons who are involved in issuance of a false and fabricated saguvali chit in favour of respondent 1 and to initiate action against all the government officials or any other persons who are behind respondent 1. The said order was passed by the tahsildar as per Annexure-C on 22-12-1988. The said order was challenged by respondent 1 by filing an appeal before the assistant commissioner, madikeri in rev/appeal/88-89. The said appeal was also dismissed on 30-4-1991. Being not satisfied with the dismissal of the appeal, respondent 1 also filed a second appeal under Section 50 of the Karnataka land revenue act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') before the deputy commissioner, kodagu district, madikeri who also dismissed the appeal on 20-12-1993. Again, respondent 1 filed a revision before the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore in revision petition No. 65 of 1994 which also came to be dismissed on 18-4-1996.

(2.) BEING not satisfied with the dismissal of the first appeal, second appeal so also the revision, respondent 1 filed a writ petition before this court in writ petition No. 18410 of 1997 requesting this court to set aside the orders passed by the tahsildar, assistant commissioner, deputy commissioner so also the Karnataka appellate tribunal. Learned single judge after hearing the parties held that when once land is granted, government loses its right to enquire into and that the parties have to settle their dispute only before the civil court and therefore the writ petition filed by respondent 1 was allowed. However, a liberty was given to the parties to approach the civil court to work out their rights in civil court. The said order is now challenged before us.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that the learned single judge did not consider the order passed by the tahsildar who has held that no grant was made in favour of respondent 1. According to him, when the land in question was not granted in favour of respondent 1, tahsildar has got every right to look into whether the land was really granted in favour of respondent 1 or not and that the tahsildar is empowered to initiate action against respondent 1 for having created forged document in his favour as if the government had granted land in his favour. Therefore, he contends that there was no necessity for the learned single judge to direct the parties to approach the civil court since there was no grant made in favour of respondent 1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent 1 Sri balakrishna shastry contends that when once the lands are granted in favour of two persons, government loses its right to investigate and that the tahsildar had no power to initiate action in the matter and to look into whether the grant was made in favour of respondent 1 or not and he further contends that the appellant who has been granted with saguvali chit, he has to work out his remedy only before the civil court and not before the revenue authorities. To support his view, he has also relied upon the judgment of this court in V. Channanarasimhaiah V. Additional Tahsildar, Bangalore north taluk and others. Based on these submissions, he requests this court to dismiss the appeal.