H BASAVARAJ Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 30th August, 2006 passed in Revision Petition No. 137/2005-06 by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore vide Annexure-Q, and to hold the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents-authorities to continue the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land in Survey No. 9 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas situate at Krishnarajapuram Village from the agricultural year 1994-95 and onwards.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that, petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 28836 of 2003 seeking a direction to the Deputy Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore to consider the representation submitted by petitioner vide Annexure-F therein and direct the respondents to enter the name of the petitioner in the RTC extract both in the cultivator's column as well as in column (9) in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 9 measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas in Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore East Taluk. THE said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 4th July, 2003. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Deputy Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram to consider the representation submitted by petitioner vide Annexure-F therein and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In the light of the direction issued by this Court in the said writ petition, the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore passed the order dated 12th September, 2003, after careful evaluation of the entire relevant material available on record, and in total compliance and obedience of the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition disposed of on 4th July, 2003 vide Annexure-N, rejecting the request made by petitioner by assigning nine valid reasons for such rejection. THE said authority disposed of the matter, holding that, there are no authenticated documents in the Revenue Office to show that, petitioner's name is entered in the relevant records in respect of the land in question and more over on the ground that, the said authority does not have any power to pass the order, directing to record the name of petitioner afresh either in column (9) or in column (12) cultivator's column and closed the case. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram, dated 12th September, 2003, in proceedings No. RRT (1) CR. 145/2002-03, vide Annexure-N, petitioner has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore in proceedings No. R.A. 138/2003-04. THE Assistant Commissioner in turn, after considering the relevant material available on file, and also considering the documents produced by the petitioner numbering 10 and by assigning cogent reasons, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore East Sub-Division, Bangalore, dated 21st June, 2005 bearing No. R.A. 138/2003-04 vide Annexure-P, petitioner has filed the revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in Revision Petition No. 137/2005-06. THE said matter had come up for consideration before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District on 30th August, 2006 and the Special Deputy Commissioner, after hearing both parties, after conducting enquiry and after critical evaluation of the entire original records threadbare, with reference to the relevant material available on file, and also considering the order passed by the Special Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner, has dismissed the revision filed by petitioner, holding that, the claim put forth by petitioner in respect of Sy. No. 9 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of Krishnarajapuram Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk (formerly Bangalore South Taluk) is based on created, concocted and forged documents and since there is no land grant order as such passed in favour of the petitioner herein, the question of cancelling the same does not arise and in the result, the revision petition filed by petitioner does not merit consideration. THE revision petition filed by petitioner was accordingly dismissed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram, Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore East Sub-Division, Bangalore and the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs as stated above.

(3.) PER contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents, at the threshold, submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground that, all the three authorities, after thorough verification of the relevant material available on file, have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner holding that, when there is no grant as such made in favour of petitioner, the question of cancellation of the same does not arise and that, the continuity of the name of petitioner in the RTC extract has been rightly refused by all the three Competent Authorities and the same are in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. To further substantiate his submission, he has taken me through the specific finding recorded by the Special Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 30th August, 2006 vide Annexure-Q and submitted that, the said authority has considered all the aspects of the matter and the grounds urged by petitioner in the revision petition and accordingly, has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by petitioner, confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner respectively. Therefore, he submitted that, interference by this Court in the well-considered orders passed by all the three authorities is not justifiable, exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed with costs.