A.VENKATESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-L dtd. 23/5/2023 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-3, Bengaluru North Sub-Division in proceedings bearing No.RRT(2) (NA)CR:28/2010-11 and the petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings bearing No.LND(Appeal):15/2016-17 pending consideration before respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this case has got a checkered history. The claim of the petitioner is regarding 2 acres of land in Sy.No.1 of Savarline village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The petitioner is claiming under the original grantee- Sri.Nagarajappa, who is said to have been granted land in question on 7/10/1954. It is contended that the name of Sri.Nagarajappa was entered in the land revenue records. In the year 1968, a registered partition deed was executed between the family members of Sri.Nagarajappa. Sri.Nagarajappa also left behind a registered Will dtd. 18/7/1984 in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that the name of the petitioner has been entered in the records of the then City Corporation of Bengaluru. It is contended that in terms of a registered partition deed dtd. 18/2/2009, site No.1 and 2 fell to the share of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Defence Estate Officer to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of site No.1 and 2, which is adjoining the defence land of the Controller of Quality Assurance Laboratory (CQAL), as a matter of precaution to avoid any boundary dispute. It is contended that on 11/12/2009, the Defence Estate Officer issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner after verifying the Military Land Register; endorsement issued by the Tahsildar and on physical verification, stating that the land falls outside the boundary of the defence land. However, subsequently, No Objection Certificate was recalled and at the instance of respondent No.7-Parachute Regiment Training Center (PRTC), the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk initiated proceedings under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), in the matter of revenue entries.

(3.) When the proceedings were pending consideration before the Special Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.51566/2013, seeking a direction to the Special Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the proceedings within a time frame. Accordingly, this Court directed the Special Deputy Commissioner to conclude the proceedings on or before 30/4/2014. Learned Senior Counsel submits that when the Deputy Commissioner did not pass orders within timeframe fixed by this Court, the petitioner had to, initiate contempt proceedings before this Court and during the course of the contempt proceedings. The Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 19/6/2014, remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner clearly held that the powers conferred under Sec. 136(3) of the Act gives limited power of correction of entry and not for cancellation of entry in the revenue records. It was directed that the contesting respondents herein who have parallel claim to title and possession over the subject land, may resort to the proviso to Sec. 135 of the Act to seek declaration of their title over the subject land and they may also challenge the khatha entry made in the records of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The Deputy Commissioner had also extracted a portion of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.31788/2011, wherein it was held "where the grant is proved to be obtained by making false or fraudulent representation or is contrary to rules, an appeal is the remedy and the provisions under Sec. 136(3) cannot be invoked for the purpose of indirectly securing the cancellation of grant".