LAWS(KAR)-2017-7-189

SATISH HEGDE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On July 26, 2017
Satish Hegde Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four acres of land comprised in Sy.No.58 New Sy.No.141 situated at Singrahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was purchased by the petitioner under registered Sale Deed dated 30.11.2011 from one D.Subramanya. After purchasing the land in question, petitioner applied for change of nature of the land from agricultural zone to residential zone before the planning authority i.e., Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA). The said planning authority, after obtaining necessary report from the jurisdictional revenue authority and after getting approval of BMRDA, Urban Development Department and after collecting necessary fees, permitted petitioner to change nature of the land from agricultural zone to residential zone. This is evident from Annexures-N to N3 annexed to the writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner learnt from the neighbouring landowners that the Tahsildar, Devanahalli, had issued notice in the month of August, 2013 under Rules 39 and 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Hence, petitioner approached the Tahsildar and produced all the relevant documents to show his title over the land in question. The Tahsildar, Devanahalli, forwarded the documents to the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, requesting him to initiate proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short, 'the Act'). A copy of this letter is produced at Annexure-Q. A perusal of the said letter Annexure-Q would disclose that notice issued to the petitioner had not been served on him and the proceedings had been set in motion based on a complaint given by one K.Shivappa of Harohalli stating that spurious documents had been created to show that grants had been made in favour of various persons in Sy.No.58. It is in this background, the Tahsildar requested the Deputy Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act to hold an enquiry and take over the land by the Government. Subsequently, on 05.03.2014, another communication Annexure-R was addressed by the Tahsildar, Devanahalli to the Deputy Commissioner, wherein with regard to the present petitioner, the Tahsildar stated that 4 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.58 had been purchased by Basavachar in public auction by way of Darkast and that the said fact had been noted in the Darkast Register. He also pointed out that for the year 1968-69, khatha of the land in question was transferred in the name of Basavachar and the same was entered in the RTC. The Tahsildar in the said letter refers to various transactions which were entered into regarding the said 4 acres of land which was originally purchased by Basavachar in public auction. It is forthcoming from the details furnished by the Tahsildar in the said communication that Basavachar sold the land in favour of Ramachandra vide Sale Deed dated 13.02.1973. Thereafter, Ramachandra sold the same in favour of T.Madduraiah vide Sale Deed dated 25.05.1981, from whom one M.Govindappa purchased the same vide Sale Deed dated 16.05.1985. Thereafter, the land was sold in favour of D.Subramanya on 02.08.1996 and it was the said D.Subramanya, who sold it in favour of present petitioner as per Sale Deed dated 30.11.2011. It is also noticed by the Tahsildar in the said communication that a proceeding had been initiated for violation of provisions of Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act against D.Subramanya, vendor of the petitioner. After enquiry, vide order dated 30.10.2000 passed in LRF.SR:79/97-98 & 267/96-97 the land was ordered to be forfeited. This was challenged by D.Subramanya, vendor of the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 06.04.2011, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

(3.) Thus, it is seen that the land in question was subject matter of various transactions including proceedings initiated for forfeiture as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, before the same was purchased by petitioner.