STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dtd. 6/11/2024 in WP no.201778/2023. The operative portion of impugned order is as follows:

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition. He would vehemently contend in his argument that the order of the learned Single Judge is illegal, arbitrary and without application of judicious mind. He would further contend that before filing the application under Sec. 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar in the year 1983-84, the land was standing as a government land. For the first time, the entries started after the year 1983 and not earlier. Earlier entries were very clear that Kashibai Kunta is not a name of particular lady or Pattedar, but it is a tank which is called in Kannada as a Kunta. It is contended that Subhash has given application styling himself as a successor of original lady Kashibai Kunta and sought for correction in the Right of Records (RORs). The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar on the revision under Sec. 136(3) corrected the entries. In fact this is a government land as found from the village map of the year 1923, even as per the report of the Assistant Director of land records, which is accompanied by sketch map, village map and other relevant documents. It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to mutate the government land in the name of private person. He also submits that the government land doesn't lose its identity and ownership, unless it is granted either by tribunal or by Revenue Authority and in the case on hand, there is no such grant of government land. The respondent by fraudulently misrepresenting the Kashibai Kunta as his ancestor, got the land mutated in his name and same doesn't make a government land as a Patta land of private person.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General also contended that the revenue records clearly discloses that it is a 'B' Kharab land under Sec. 67 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1967 all public roads, streets, bridges etc., belong to the government. The counsel also vehemently contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar in the year 1983, mutating the government land as a private land is not correct and the same was not taken note of by the learned Single Judge while passing such an order. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.