M N VENKATESHAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single judge dated 27th September, 2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 26831 of 2000, has preferred this writ appeal. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) THE background facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal, in brief, are as follows.-The grandmother of appellant, one late Smt. Kalamma, was granted 11 acres 34 guntas of land in Sy. No. 50 of Mallepura Village, channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District during 1940s. In the same survey number, 5 acres of land was also granted to the father of the appellant, Narayanappa by name. Thus, an extent of 16 acres 34 guntas of land, in total, in Sy. No. 50 of Mallepura village was granted in favour of the grandmother and father of the appellant. The said land is hereinafter referred to as the scheduled land for the sake of brevity. It is the case of the appellant that from the date of the grant, allthrough the schedule land has been in actual possession and personal cultivation of the family of the appellant and all the revenue records also support that claim. When the matter stood thus, in the year 1995, on account of rivalry in the village, some of the residents of Mallepura Village made an application to the Tahsildar, devanahalli Taluk-4th respondent herein, to set aside the entries in column 9 and Column 12 (2) of pahanis which were standing in the name of the appellant and his predecessors-in-title and to hold that the schedule land is a 'gomal land' The Tahsildar, having issued notice to smt. Kalamma, Sri Narayanappa and the appellant and having heard the parties, passed an order on 27-2-1996, marked as Annexure-V, directing cancellation of the entries in Column 9 and Column 12 (2) of pahanis and to show the schedule land as 'gomal'.

(3.) AGAINST the above order of the Tahsildar, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur sub-Division-3rd respondent herein, who, by his order dated 30-4-1997, dismissed the appeal. The appellant preferred further appeal to the deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore-2nd respondent herein in No. LND. RA. 7/97-98, who, by his order dated 30-11-1999 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant preferred writ Petition No. 26831 of 2000. In the writ petition, among other grounds, it was urged that from the inception of the grants during 1940s, the appellant and his predecessors-in-title have been in actual possession and personal cultivation of the schedule land uninterruptedly growing various crops; the record of rights and pahanis of the schedule land continuously show the name of the appellant and his predecessors-in-title as occupiers and cultivators of the schedule land; the entries made in the record of rights and pahanis of the schedule land were never challenged or contested by anyone till the year 1995; the respondent-authorities i. e. , the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have exceeded their jurisdiction in recording a finding that the grants pleaded by the appellant are bogus, particularly in the absence of any challenge to the grant orders; since there is no challenge by anyone to the grants made in favour of Smt. Kalamma and Narayanappa, the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have pronounced upon the validity of the grant orders. Placing reliance on the judgment of the division Bench of this Court in the case of H. M. Hanumantharaju and others v State of Karnataka and Another , it was contended that since the 2nd respondent has not yet cancelled the grants made in favour of kalamma and Narayanappa, the Tahsildar ought not to have invoked his power under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the "act") and such a course is open to the Tahsildar only if grant orders are cancelled.