GURAPPA AND NANJAPPA Vs. REVENUE INSPECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Petitioners have sought for quashing the order vide Annexure -'M' dated 26.8.2009, passed by the 6th respondent -Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District The 6th respondent, exercising the power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, passed the impugned order by holding that the grant is 'Non -existed' and the land shall be taken over by the Government.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioners, way back in the year 1979, there was a grant in their favour under Land Grant Rules and in the year 2006, petitioner No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 3377/2006 seeking for a direction to issue grant certificate. The writ petition came to be allowed by the order dated 13th March 2007, directing the Land Grant Committee to consider the case of the petitioner. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent submitted the papers to the 6th respondent -Special Deputy Commissioner who passed the impugned order stating that there is no grant order made in favour of the petitioners, and as such, by initiating suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act and after causing notice to the petitioners, the impugned order is passed. The petitioners by referring to an unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 39809/2012, disposed of on 19th February 2013, states that the petitions be allowed in terms of the orders passed in the said writ petition. It appears, on verification of the original records or some other records, the Deputy Commissioner found that there is no such grant made in favour of the petitioners and after due notice, the impugned order is passed and the same cannot be said to be an illegal order. No doubt the Deputy Commissioner has initiated suo motu proceedings. In the judgment reported in the case of STARTLAWFINDERSri Ashok -vs -Shri Pandurang and others ILR 2012 Kar 4571ENDLAWFINDER, this Court held that the Deputy Commissioner has suo motu power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land revenue Act and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 39809/2012 might be without looking into the latest developments and provisions of Section 136(3) of the KLR Act and as such, the judgment rendered is per incuriam. When petitioners have been granted the lands during the year 1979, nothing prevented them to produce the order of grant and also if really the petitioners had been granted any lands as per that grant order, they would not have kept quiet from 1979 to 2006 for issuance of saguvali chit. Thus, Petitioners have no right to seek such relief after lapse of 30 years. Accordingly, Writ Petitions are dismissed.