BALAJI Vs. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT AMBEDKAR VEEDI VIDHANA SOUDHA, THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for quashing the impugned order dated 17.2.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure -A in respect of property bearing Sy.No.200/P29, measuring 2 acres situated at Marenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk and for such other order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in question having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 26.10.2006. Originally, the land measuring 4 acres was granted in favour of one Muddappa. The said Muddappa sold 2 acres of land in favour of one Muniyappa under a registered sale deed dated 25.7.1996. Pursuant to the said sale deed, all the revenue records in respect of 2 acres were mutated in the name of Muniyappa. Thereafter, the said Muniyappa sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner. As per the registered sale deed dated 26.10.2006, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. Since then, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, were initiated against the said Muniyappa and another. Sri Anjanappa before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, pursuant to the report of the Tahsildar. However, by order dated 2.9.2010, the said proceedings were dropped. Again, similar proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act were initiated against the petitioner before the 2nd respondent -Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has disposed of the proceedings against the petitioner and ordered to resume the land in favour of the Government and to delete the name of the petitioner in the RTC columns. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned Government Pleader, they are unable to produce the original grant order and also there is no record available even in the office of the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner regarding the grant made in favour of the vendor of the petitioner.

(3.) THE land in question was granted in favour of Muddappa during 1963 -64 itself. The Deputy Commissioner has opined that the land in question is included in the list of Government land encroachments and that there is no original grant order available with the petitioner. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as the petitioner did not make available the original grant order and the relevant records. If the petitioner is able to produce the original grant order and relevant documents, then only the petitioner to move the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the matter on merits. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of.