PADMA DORE AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who are the legal representatives of late Thiruvan Dore have filed these Writ Petitions assailing the order dated 12.10.2011 passed in Case No. RRT(A)CR/44/2009 -10 by the 2nd respondent -Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore insofar as agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 64/P61 measuring 2 acres at Bhootanahally Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk is concerned. It is the case of the petitioners that late Thiruvan Dore was the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 64/P61. Out of this extent, 1 acre 20 guntas was granted to him by an order of grant dated 29.6.1979 made by the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk. Subsequently, Form No. 10 was also issued in respect of the said grant on 21.5.1980. The remaining extent of 2 acres is said to have been purchased by late Thiruvan Dore from one Munivenkatappa under a registered sale deed dated 8.5.1980. It is stated that Munivenkatappa in turn purchased the land from one Smt. Nandyalamma under a sale deed dated 30.11.1977. It is also averred that Nandyalamma was granted that extent of land by a grant certificate dated 10.12.1960 by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk. It is further stated that the name of late Thiruvan Dore was mutated in the revenue records in respect of both extents of land.

(2.) WHEN the matter stood, it appears that the 3rd respondent Tahsildar had issued a communication to the 2nd respondent -Special Deputy Commissioner alleging that late Thiruvan Dore had been in illegal possession of land bearing Sy. No. 64/P61 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas. On the basis of the said communication/report of the Tahsildar, 3rd respondent -Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Petitioners on receiving notice in respect of the proceedings had appeared and filed their objections. It is stated that they were able to prove by way of documents i.e., the grant of occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 64/P61 but as far as the purchase of the land to an extent of 2 acres in the very same survey number by late Thiruvan Dore is concerned, though the documents of sale were produced by the petitioners, they were not able to produce the grant certificate dated 10.12.1960 issued in favour of Smt. Nandyalamma from whom the extent of 2 acres was ultimately purchased by late Thiruvan Dore through an intermittent vendor. Since no grant certificate dated 10.12.1960 on which reliance was placed by the petitioners was produced before the 2nd respondent, that authority ordered that insofar as the said 2 acres are concerned, it should be treated as government land and the names of the petitioners must be deleted from the revenue records. Being aggrieved by that order, petitioners have preferred these Writ Petitions.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that there were documents with regard to grant of land in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No. 64/P61 is concerned and the 2nd respondent authority had accepted those documents and dropped the proceedings in respect of that extent. As far as 2 acres of land is concerned, as the petitioners did not produce the relevant documents, petitioners' case was not accepted. He submits that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, petitioners have obtained the certified copy of the order of grant dated 10.12.1960 made in favour of Smt. Nandyalamma from whom the late Thiruvan Dore had ultimately obtained the ownership and possession of that extent of land through an intervening vendor. He therefore contends that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to place before the 2nd respondent authority the order of grant dated 10.12.1960 as well as other relevant documents in order to prove the case of the petitioners.