Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sridhara babu. N
DISCLAIMER
The Information provided regarding legal subjects
in my series of blogs /scribd documents is only for
general awareness, Iam not responsible for any
consequence through use or misuse of the same. All
documents are drafted for specific needs, there is
no guarantee or warrantee if its copied for any such
similar causes. Errors and omissions expected. All
blog
web
sites/
scribd
documents
The
information
presented
at
these
are
encouraged
to
seek
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
INDEX
NO
PARTICULARS
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has it any
presumptive value on title. In such circumstances, merely because the
patta has been changed, in pursuance, it will not confer or extinguish title
of the plaintiffs/respondents herein or the third defendant/appellant
herein...
Sridhara babu. N
Smt
Huchamma vs State of Karnataka has quoted the case law of The State
Government Employees' ... vs The Hubli-Dharwad Urban.. Reported
ILR 1999 KAR 1797, 1999 (3) KarLJ 286 Therefore, once the land is
declared as a vacant land, it ceased to be an agricultural land. Once the
land is ceased to be agricultural land by application of process of the
Urban Land Ceiling Act, the land is no more agriculture. Once the land is
not an agricultural land, the question of getting the land converted from
agriculture to non-agriculture as provided under Section 95 of Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, does not arise. A similar question arose in Civil Appeal
No. 6079 of 1997 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held
that once the land is treated as a vacant land and exemption is granted,
there is no requirement of obtaining permission under Section 95 of
Sridhara babu. N
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The principles laid down in the above
judgment apply to the facts of the present case.
Sridhara babu. N
has been cultivating the property as the tenant since much prior to
1.3.1974, as on 1.3.1974 and even thereafter. Hence, he is entitled to get
the occupancy rights.
MERE NON-USER OF THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE OR
PURPOSES
SUBSERVIENT
THERETO
OR
USE
FOR
NON-
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Act and the ODP and CDP prepared thereunder, is correct and we entirely
agree with the view taken by the learned Judge.
It is also stated that the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Bangalore Development Authority v. Vishwa Bharathi House Building
Co-operative Society Limited ILR1991 KAR 4401, has held that the lands
which are situated within the jurisdiction of the Corporation are deemed
to be converted for that particular use. Therefore the question of
classifying these lands as non-agricultural lands in the impugned
notification is totally arbitrary and illegal and moreover as these
notifications have retrospective effect, the public interest and the
property rights guaranteed to citizens have been given a go-bye.
Sridhara babu. N
purposes.
Therefore,
the
question of
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
thereto as mentioned in Section 2(18) of the Act or that it was used for
non-agricultural purpose, assuming it be so, would not convert the
agricultural land into a non-agricultural land for the purposes either of
the Revenue Act or of the Act, viz., Karnataka Land Reforms Act. To hold
otherwise would defeat the object of both the Acts and would, in
particular, render the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act,
nugatory. Such an interpretation is not permissible by any rule of the
interpretation of statutes." The Supreme Court, after ruling that
the use of land for non-agricultural purpose would not convert the
agricultural land into non-agricultural land in the absence of permission
for conversion under Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act, over-ruled the
Judgment of this Court in MYSORE FEEDS LTD. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND ANR. 7. 1988(1) KLJ 310 wherein it was held -
.. (i) a
Sridhara babu. N
the Act lands which fall within the definition in Section 2(18) alone stand
transferred to and vest in the Government, Lands which ceased to be
agricultural lands by order of alienation passed by the Assistant
Commissioner are not agricultural lands within Section 2(18) and the
Land Tribunal has so jurisdiction to entertain an application under
Section 48A and grant occupancy rights in respect of such lands. Failure
on the part of the Tribunal to raise the legal presumption under Section
133 Land Revenue Act from the entry in the record of rights vitiates its
order.
A PERSON AGGRIEVED BY ALIENATION ORDER HAS TO CHALLENGE
THE SAME BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES, HE CANNOT
BYPASS THAT REMEDY AND GET THAT ORDER INVALIDATED
BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER THE LAND
REFORMS ACT
1983 (2) KLJ 148 - Gopalappa v. Gurushankariah and Ors. was relied
upon wherein it was observed as under in paragraphs 9 & 11: As the law
stands in the State, the holder of an agricultural land, if he intends using
the same for any non-agricultural purpose, should get that land converted
for a non-agricultural purpose under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 (Land Revenue Act). The land in question has been
converted long prior to March 1, 1974 as a non-agricultural land. The
learned Judge has found, from the material available, that a few houses
had also been built on the land after the land was converted. In this
connection the observation made by him at paragraph 5 of the order is as
follows: In the instant case Exs.B and F are the endorsements given by the
Tahsildar about the grant of alienation. According to the endorsement Ex.
F the petitioner had paid the conversion fine before 21-11-72. He got the
khatha changed into his name. He applied and got licence for construction
Sridhara babu. N
of houses and that in fact he had constructed four houses. The material on
record clearly establish that the land in question was a converted land. ...
The two enactments, namely, the Land Reforms Act and the Land Revenue
Act are distinct and different. Permission to convert an agricultural land
for non-agricultural purpose has to be obtained from the prescribed
authority under the Land Revenue Act. A person aggrieved by grant of
such permission has to challenge the same before the appropriate
authorities prescribed thereunder. He cannot bypass that remedy and get
that order invalidated before the Land Tribunal constituted under the
Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal has no power to go behind the
statutory order according permission to convert the land for nonagricultural purpose under the Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the finding
of the learned Judge that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the
claim of the appellant and the provisions of the Act were not attracted to
the land in question is correct and calls for no interference. Therefore, the
appeal is rejected.
Sridhara babu. N
learned Single Judge was in error in having directed the remand, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. The earlier part of
the order setting aside the Tribunal's order granting occupancy rights is
upheld. It necessarily follows by implication that the Form 7 stands
rejected. (paras 3 and 7) ... The revenue authorities are the deciding
authorities in matters of granting non-agricultural permission and if the
authorities were satisfied and they did accord conversion from
agricultural to non-agricultural, then, on and from the date of the order,
the lands change complexion. The existence of a few mango trees would
not be sufficient to change the nature and character of the land."
THE PETITIONERS CANNOT SEEK FOR ISSUE OF A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS WHERE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAY DECLINE
PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 95(3) OF THE ACT
JUSTICE D.V. Shylendra Kumar, in the case of Chikkusappa vs State Of
Karnataka And Ors. Reported in 2006 (3) KarLJ 64 As noticed above,
while the provisions of Section 95 of the Act compelling an occupant of a
land assessed or held for agricultural purpose to obtain permission from
the Deputy Commissioner on making an application and the Deputy
Commissioner being enabled to grant or refuse such permission and
taking into consideration the relevant aspect as indicated in this very
section and the provisions being a regulatory provision, essentially meant
for regulating the use and diversion of land held for agricultural purpose,
an order granting permission is the rule and refusal will be an exception
and of course and refusal being if the grant of permission is likely to
defeat the provisions of any law in force or even if it is likely to cause
public nuisance or even if it is in the interest of general public etc., as
indicated in Section 95(3) of the Act. It is to be noticed that some of these
situations where under the Deputy Commissioner may decline permission
Sridhara babu. N
have been specifically included under Section 95(3) of the Act by the
Amendment Act 2 of 1991 with effect from 20-3-1991. It is significant to
notice that such situations were not available on the statute book when
this Court rendered the decision in the case of Veeramadhu. Assuming for
argument's sake and as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners, that the decision of this Court in the case of Veeramadhu is to
be construed as a decision touching upon the provisions of Section 95 of
the Act or on the interpretation thereof, which I am of the view is not one
touching upon the provisions of Section 95 of the Act, nevertheless, even
in such a situation, as the very provisions have undergone legislative
changes, the decision cannot be considered as an authority in the light of
the present situation i.e., the present Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the
Act and therefore the decision in the case of Veeramadhu is not a binding
precedent and therefore petitioners cannot call in aid the doctrine of stare
decisis. The petitioners cannot seek for issue of a writ of mandamus in the
present writ petitions as had been done by this Court in the case of
Veeramadhu.
-----------------------SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE POINT
JUSTICE Doraiswamy Raju & JUSTICE Arijit Pasayat in the case of K.
Kunhambu vs Smt. Chandramma & Ors Reported in 2004 AIR 4599,
2004(2 )SCR249 , 2004(9 )SCC174 , 2004(2 )SCALE363 , 2004(3
)JT255 The decision in Shankara Textile Mills Ltd. case (1995 AIR 234,
1995 SCC (1) 295) has been rendered in totally different context and
circumstances and cannot lend, in our view, any assistance to support the
claims of the appellant in this case. It could be seen from the facts of that
case, the company, which owned an extent of 49 acres and 38.25 guntas
was able to get only an extent of 13 acres and 32.25 guntas converted into
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
2(18) of the Act, i.e., Karnataka Land Reforms Act, investing the
authorities with the jurisdiction to take proceedings under Section 79-B
of the Act. We are afraid that the High Court has misread the facts on
record. The consistent stand taken by the authorities is that the land was
never converted for non-agricultural use as required by the provisions of
Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act. The mere fact that at the relevant time,
the land was not used for agricultural purpose or purposes subservient
thereto as mentioned in Section 2(18) of the Act or that it was used for
non-agricultural purpose, assuming it to be so, would not convert the
agricultural land into a non-agricultural land for the purposes either of
the Revenue Act or of the Act, viz., Karnataka Land Reforms Act. To hold
otherwise would defeat the object of both the Acts and would, in
particular, render the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act,
nugatory. Such an interpretation is not permissible by any rule of the
interpretation of statutes. What is further, the respondent-Company had
itself filed a declaration under Section 79-B(2)(a) of the Act stating
therein that the entire disputed land was agricultural land and had
claimed exemption from the provisions of the said Section 79-B under
Section 109 of the Act on the ground that the land was mortgaged to the
Mysore State Financial Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to agree
with the view taken by the High Court on the point".
The land that was the subject matter of consideration by this Court in
above noted case was indisputably agriculture and in such cases of land,
unless actual conversion under Section 95(2) of the Revenue Act was
sought and obtained, it will not stand excluded from the definition in
Section 2(A)(18) of the Land Reforms Act. The provision for conversion of
the user of the agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, as
envisaged under the Revenue Act, cannot be pressed into aid to deny or
deprive the benefit of the later part of the definition of `land' in Section
Sridhara babu. N
v.
KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL AND ANR. 1987(1) KLJ 45. This Court, while interpreting the
provisions of Section 95(4), held that immediately on the expiry of the
period of four months in the absence of a rejection order that by
operation of law, the permission is deemed to have been granted.
Sridhara babu. N
D.C. Ramesh And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. AIR 2003 Kant 480,
2003 (5) KarLJ 291 BENCH:- JUSTICE N.K. Jain, JUSTICE V Sabhahit,
Sridhara babu. N
B.H. Honnalige Gowda vs State Of Mysore And Anr. AIR 1964 Kant 84, AIR
1964 Mys 84 The Revenue Manual which is a compilation of decisions of
Government
in
appeals
and
revision
petitions,
and,
includes
Sadashivaiah And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. ILR 2003 KAR 5088
In this regard it is necessary to know what a kharab land is and what are
the rights which flow. Kharab land is so called because it is not cultivable
and is classification made for purposes of revenue exemption, Kharab
land is also capable of ownership and cannot be regarded as an adjunct to
Sridhara babu. N
cultivable land which gets transferred along with the cultivable land.
Acquisition of title to the kharab land is similar to acquisition of title to
the cultivable land. The word "Phut Kharab" and 'pot' kharab mean and
have reference to a land which is included in an assessed survey number
but which is unflit for cultivation. Every pot kharab land does not belong
to government. For the purpose of assessment, the uncultivable portion of
the land or phut kharab portion of the land is excluded from
consideration on the ground that it is cultivable. But it does not cease to
belong to the owner of the survey number. In volume I of the Mysore
Revenue Manual, the word kharab is explained in this way. The
expression 'phut kharab' is similar to the expression 'pot kharab'. That is
so, is clear from the Mysore Revenue Survey Manual where at page 68 the
words 'pot kharab' land is defined thus:
"(13). Pot kharab means a piece of pieces of land classed as unarable and
included in a survey number".
The description has no relevance to ownership. The expression put
kharab is explained in Gupte's book on the Bombay Land Revenue Code in
the following words at page 278""By the term 'pot kharab' is meant 'barren or uncultivable land included
in an assessed survey number' and includes 'any land comprised in a
survey number. Which from any reason is held not to be likely to be
brought under cultivation..........."
31. The words phut Kharab, therefore, mean and have reference to a land
which is included in an assessed survey number but which is unfit for
cultivation. After coming into the force of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act 1964 the word phut Kharab has been defined under Rule 21(2) as
under-
Sridhara babu. N
IT WAS
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
procedure has not been followed or the act has not been performed as
was required under the law.
In Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey AIR 1966 SC
1931, the honourable Supreme Court considered the scope of illustration
(e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and the question was : whether the
Deputy Commissioner, who performed the particular function, had even
been authorised to act. The court held that if an official act is proved to
have been done, it will be presumed to have been regularly done and in
such an eventuality and circumstances, the court can reasonably presume
that the Deputy Commissioner, under appropriate rules, was duly
authorised to act on behalf of the authority concerned.
A Constitution Bench of the honourable Supreme Court, in State of Punjab
v. Satya Pal Dang AIR 1969 SC 903, dealt with the prorogation issued by
the Governor. The court observed as under : "We are bound to take
judicial notice of the prorogation and presume the regularity of these
actions which must be interpreted as far as possible so that the thing done
may be valid rather than invalid."
In Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 SC 183, the
honourable Supreme Court observed that presumption provided in
illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is based on well-known
maxim of law "omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta" (i.e., all acts are
presumed to have been rightly and regularly done). The court further
held, this presumption is, however, one of the fact. It is an optional
presumption can be displaced by the circumstances indicating that the
power lodged in an authority or official has not been exercised in
accordance with law.
Sridhara babu. N
misdeed,
misbehavious,
delinquency,
impropriety,
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
property merely because his name was entered in the record of rights
cannot be accepted. Furthermore, there is nothing in the evidence of the
witnesses to indicate that Shivappa had the knowledge of deletion of his
name from the record of rights.
ILR 2003 Kar. 1774 [Mallappa Adiveppa Hadapad Vs. Smt. Rudrawwa and
Others]; wherein the revenue records stood in the name of the transferor
at the time when the transferee purchased the property and this Court
held that unless the transferee establishes that he had taken reasonable
care to ascertain the right or title of the transferor and the transferee had
acted in good faith, though the Sale Deeds are for valid consideration is
itself held to be not sufficient to validate such transaction under Section
41 of the Act.
Sridhara babu. N
The learned Counsel has further contended that the inam lands which
were attached to the Jodi village statutorily vested with the State
Government after the Inams Abolition Act of 1954 has come into force
even if the lands were mortgaged, he relied upon the decision of the Apex
Court reported in 1962(3) SCC (Suppl) 565 (Krishha Prasad and Ors. v.
Gauri Kumari Devi). He further submitted that by virtue of the order
granting occupancy rights in favour of inamdars to register them as
occupants of the lands in question pursuant to the abolition of inam lands
under the Inams Abolition Act of 1954, fresh right, title and interest was
Sridhara babu. N
conferred upon the inamdars which legal position is laid down by the
Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1977(1) K.L.J
389 (Muniyallappa v. Krishnamurthy B.M and Ors.). According to him, the
order of grant of occupancy in respect of the lands in question passed by
the Land Tribunal cannot be questioned by the petitioners in these
collateral proceedings, this position of law is well settled in the decision of
this Court reported in 1995(5) K.L.J 459(Anjanappa and Ors. v. Byrappa,
By LRs.). The order passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of the very
same lands in favour of the inamdars has become final, since the same
was not questioned or challenged in appeal by anybody. Therefore, the
same is binding upon the parties and cannot be re-opened in these
proceedings. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel has relied
upon the decision reported in 1966(1) Mys. L.J 655(F.B) (T. Srirangachar
and Anr. v. State of Mysore) which has followed another Division Bench in
the case reported in 1967(2) Mys. L.J. 373 (D.S. Thayamma v. State of
Mysore). Lastly, he has contended that the power of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited and the same can be
exercised to quash the order impugned only if it is established by the
petitioners that the same suffers from unreasonableness, arbitrariness. In
thus regard he cited the decisions of the Apex Court (Surya Dev Rai v. Ram
Chander Rai and Ors.) para 38, (Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta and
Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Anr.) para 24. The learned Counsel
has further vehemently submitted that the Land Grant Rules, particularly
Rule 27 of KLG Rules is not applicable to the lands in question for grant of
lands in favour of the Association and therefore he submits that the
impugned order or cancellation of grant of lands is legal and valid. In
support of this Marketing (Marketing Division) Coal India Ltd. and Anr. v.
Mewat Chemicals & Tiny SSI Coal Pulverising Unit and Ors.) and (Appa
Narsappa Magdum(D) Through LRs. v. Akubai
Sridhara babu. N
On a perusal of the aims and objects of the PTCL Act and especially the
definition of "granted land" as per Section 3(1)(b), it is seen that to bring
any granted land within the definition the condition precedent is that
such land should have been granted to a person belonging to either
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is to be remembered here itself
that under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and various other
provisions like the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Land Grant Rules, etc.,
time and again provisions are made to encourage cultivation and for grant
of lands to the persons who do not own land or who belong to either
depressed class or who are below the poverty line. In a loose sense, all
such granted lands cannot be the land coming within the purview of
Section 3(1)(b) as stated and as is defined, the land must have been
granted only to a person who belongs to either Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. If the grant is for any other reason and even if
incidentally such grantee belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,
in my view, the PTCL Act is not attracted. In a recent pronouncement of
this Court in the case of Abdul Haq Shamshuddin Saheb v. Deputy
Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar and Ors.,2002(5) Kar. L.J.
109 considering similar question as to the grant under the Land Revenue
Act to the Land Grant Rules to a person belonging to and only on that
count vis-a-vis the grant or conferment of right under the Land Reforms
Act, this Court has held that to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act it
must be shown that the land was granted to a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe only on that count and not otherwise.
This is more so, since like the provisions of the Land Reforms Act any
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
1978 (1) KLJ 208 - Narasimha Setty K.G. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and
Ors. wherein it is observed as under: Under Section 44 of the Act lands
which fall within the definition in Section 2(18) alone stand transferred to
and vest in the Government, Lands which ceased to be agricultural lands
by order of alienation passed by the Assistant Commissioner are not
agricultural lands within Section 2(18) and the Land Tribunal has so
jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 48A and grant
occupancy rights in respect of such lands. Failure on the part of the
Sridhara babu. N
Tribunal to raise the legal presumption under Section 133 Land Revenue
Act from the entry in the record of rights vitiates its order.
1983 (2) KLJ 148 - Gopalappa v. Gurushankariah and Ors. was relied upon
wherein it was observed as under in paragraphs 9 & 11: As the law stands
in the State, the holder of an agricultural land, if he intends using the same
for any non-agricultural purpose, should get that land converted for a
non-agricultural purpose under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 (Land Revenue Act). The land in question has been
converted long prior to March 1, 1974 as a non-agricultural land. The
learned Judge has found, from the material available, that a few houses
had also been built on the land after the land was converted. In this
connection the observation made by him at paragraph 5 of the order is as
follows: In the instant case Exs.B and F are the endorsements given by the
Tahsildar about the grant of alienation. According to the endorsement Ex.
F the petitioner had paid the conversion fine before 21-11-72. He got the
khatha changed into his name. He applied and got licence for construction
of houses and that in fact he had constructed four houses. The material on
record clearly establish that the land in question was a converted
land. ..... The two enactments, namely, the Land Reforms Act and the Land
Revenue Act are distinct and different. Permission to convert an
agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose has to be obtained from the
prescribed authority under the Land Revenue Act. A person aggrieved by
grant of such permission has to challenge the same before the appropriate
authorities prescribed thereunder. He cannot bypass that remedy and get
that order invalidated before the Land Tribunal constituted under the
Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal has no power to go behind the
statutory order according permission to convert the land for non-
Sridhara babu. N
agricultural purpose under the Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the finding
of the learned Judge that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the
claim of the appellant and the provisions of the Act were not attracted to
the land in question is correct and calls for no interference. Therefore, the
appeal is rejected.
In 2003 (5) Kar.L.J. 13 - Madhav Bandopant Kulkarni and Anr. v. The Land
Tribunal, Belgaum and Ors. it is observed as under: The document
conclusively establishes that as for as this 15 guntas of land is concerned,
that by order dated 31-10-1963, non-agricultural permission was
granted; this was a good ten years prior to the amendment of the Land
Reforms Act. It is a condition precedent under the Land Reforms Act that
the land in question must be agricultural land and then alone that the
Tribunal assumes jurisdiction to grant occupancy right.... Since the
learned Single Judge was in error in having directed the remand, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. The earlier part of
the order setting aside the Tribunal's order granting occupancy rights is
upheld. It necessarily follows by implication that the Form 7 stands
rejected. (paras 3 and 7) ............. The revenue authorities are the deciding
authorities in matters of granting non-agricultural permission and if the
authorities were satisfied and they did accord conversion from
agricultural to non-agricultural, then, on and from the date of the order,
the lands change complexion. The existence of a few mango trees would
not be sufficient to change the nature and character of the land." (para 6)
Sridhara babu. N
under Land Revenue Act comes into existence, the land ceases to be
agricultural one for the purpose of Section 2(18) of the Land Reforms Act.
In such an event, the land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the
application under Section 48-A to grant occupancy rights in respect of
such land. No doubt the entries in the record of rights raises legal
presumption under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act but this is a
rebuttal presumption and as already stated the tenant was successful in
establishing that as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior to the said date, he
was cultivating the said lands as a tenant.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
M.N. Venkateshaiah vs The State Of Karnataka ILR 2005 KAR 5084, 2005
(6) KarLJ 452 , In that view of the matter, we are of the considered
opinion that the say of the revenue authorities that the documents
produced by the appellant to show that the schedule land was granted in
favour of his grandmother and father are bogus because there are no
entries in the original dharkast register for the corresponding period, is
not correct. The revenue authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that
such lapse might have occurred on account of the mistake or direliction of
duty on the part of the concerned officer who was entrusted with the duty
of making entries in the Dharkast registers. Be that as it may, if the Deputy
Commissioner were to initiate proceedings for cancellation of grant in
favour of the grandmother and father of the appellant or calling upon the
appellant to trace his title to the schedule land, the appellant would have
reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence to satisfy the Deputy
Commissioner about the existence of the grants. That power which is
exclusively available to the Deputy Commissioner, in terms of law, could
not have been usurped by the Tahsildar in the purported exercise of his
power under Section 133 of the Act. The Tahsildar, undeniably, has no
power to pronounce upon the validity of the grants made in favour of the
grandmother and father of the appellant in 1940s or on the existence of
such grants or bogus nature of the documents produced by the appellant
to support his case that in 1940s the schedule land was granted in favour
of his grandmother or father. The revenue authroities, in our considered
opinion, have exceeded their jurisdiction in recording a finding that the
documents produced by the appellant to establish that the schedule land
was granted in favour of his grandmother and father are bogus, that too,
in a proceeding initiated by the Tahsildar under Section 133 of the Act.
Sridhara babu. N
In such fact-situation, having noticed the fact that the grants made in
favour of the original grantees were not cancelled by any competent
authority, though such a power lies with them under Rule 9(1 )(i) and (v)
of the Rules and placing reliance on the Judgment of another Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Siddaiah v. Hutchamma, 1982 (2) KLJ SN
28 it was held by this Court thus: "If the contention of the respondent
revenue authorities that alienation in favour of the appellants were made
in violation of the non-alienation clause of grant is correct, when they
ought to have resorted to the above Rule 9 of the Rules for cancellation of
the grant itself and only thereafter they could have initiated proceedings
under Section 136(3) of the Act for correction of the revenue entries. But,
without cancelling the grant, they could not have adopted indirect way of
cancelling the grant by changing the mutation entry. This is ex facie
impermissible in law".
H.M. Hanumantharaju and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2000(8) Kar.
LJ. 58 (DB) : ILR 2001 Kar. : 3445 (DB), Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964), Section 128 - Karnataka Land Grant
Rules, 1969, Rule 9(1)(i) and (v) - Grantees sold the lands in
contravention of the clause prohibiting alienation - Deputy Commissioner
ordered to strike off the names of the purchasers from the Revenue
Records - Order of the Deputy Commissioner set aside - Proper procedure
is to take action for cancelling the grant.
TENANCY
Sridhara babu. N
1980(1) KLJ 281 (Putta Gowda. v. State and Ors.), wherein it has been
held as follows: Where even after order permitting surrender registered
in 1965 a tenant was in possession he must be held or deemed to be a
tenant granted occupancy rights. Mere permission to surrender without
delivery of it does not apprehend the relationship of landlord and tenant
delivery of possession by the tenant to the landlady is acceptance from
the possession or initiated to effect to surrender.
ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY
DOCUMENTS
K. Pasala Reddy @ A.K. Pasalappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka ... on 28
September, 2007 The authorities are duty bound to effect the mutation
based on 'Certificate of Grant' within the reasonable period from the date
of grant and even otherwise the grantees are also at liberty to approach
the authorities for expediting such an action and normally no grantee will
keep quiet without getting his name mutated in the revenue records for
so long. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he has
not produced in certified copy of the original documents in respect of the
land in question. Therefore, the second respondent has opined that, the
claim of petitioner is bereft of reasoning and the entries so made are with
an ulterior motive of making a 'wrongful gain' of the suit land belonging
to Government. Therefore, having no other alternative, the said authority
has directed the Tahsildar, Bangalroe South Taluk to round off all the
related entries concerning the suit land made in the revenue records such
as IL, RR, RTC and all other allied registers/records as they are all based
on created, bogus and concocted entries, It is further significant to note
that, when this matter was pending adjudication before this Court since
2005, after nearly expiry of four years also, petitioner has not chosen to
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
applicable only to Courts as defined under the Act and are not applicable
to the Land Tribunals. Section 48-A of the Act provides for enquiry by the
Tribunal. Sub-section (5) of Section 48-A of the Act States that where an
objection is filed disputing the validity of the applicant's claim or setting
up a rival claim, the Tribunal shall, after enquires, determine, by order,
the person entitled to be registered as occupant after holding an enquiry.
Therefore the provisions of CPC are not applicable to the Land Tribunal.
Therefore, adopting the procedure prescribed in the CPC as amended by
Act No. 22/2002 in the matter of examination-in-chief of the witness by
way of affidavit is contrary to mandatory procedure prescribed in Rule 17
of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. The Tribunal is required to record
evidence as provided in Rule 17(5) of the Rules. It is not permissible to
the Tribunal for accept examination-in-chief by way of affidavit.
Sridhara babu. N
It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question is a punja land and
is not capable of cultivation. There is no finding recorded by the Tribunal
on this aspect of the matter. When the landlord contends that the land is
not capable of being cultivated, it is incumbent upon the Land Tribunal
give a finding on this point, if necessary by holding a spot inspection.
Further, the Land Tribunal is not justified in accepting the examinationin-chief of the witnesses by way of affidavits, particularly in English. It has
not recorded a finding whether its members understand English
language. In my view, the procedure followed by the Tribunal is contrary
to law.
QUOTED CITATIONS
This Court in Bheemappa v. Land Tribunal, Jamakhandi, 1977 (2) Kar.LJ
190 has held that the combined effect of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms
Rules and Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act is that evidence should be
recorded in the hand-writing of the officer conduting an inquiry. This is a
clear obligation imposed upon officers or authorities entrusted with the
duty of holding a formal inquiry, recording of evidence on cyclo-styled
pro-forma is impermissible.
In Dattatraya Pandit v. Land Tribunal, Hukkeri, 1997 (2) Kar. L.J 209, this
Court has held that under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules,
the Tribunal has to follow the procedure laid down by Section 34 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act for holding enquires. It is further held that
the said provisions do not permit the Tribunal to dispose of the cases
merely on affidavits. It is as follows; "According to Rule 17 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the Tribunal has to follow the procedure
Sridhara babu. N
laid down by Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for holding
enquiries. Section 34 read with Sections 35 and 36 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act requires that the proceedings of the Tribunal should be held
in open and it does not permit the Tribunal to dispose of cases merely on
affidavits of parties in which case, the opposite party will have no
opportunity of contesting the evidence by cross-examination. No
following the above procedure is an illegality which vitiates the
proceedings."
In Byrappa and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1981 (2) Kar.L.J.1 a
Division Bench of this Court has held that having regard to the
requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules, the summary of the evidence in an
inquiry before the Tribunal should be recorded by its Chairman and this is
mandatory. Any breach of the requirement vitiates the proceeding before
the Tribunal.
In Seetharamaiah B.N. and Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Virajpet and Ors., 1985
(1) Kar.L.J. 369, a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the
Chairman of the Tribunal is not in a position to write down the deposition
of the parties and therefore, dictates the summary of the deposition either
to a member of the Tribunal or to a member of the staff of the Tribunal
who records the same accurately, any order passed on the basis of the
evidence so recorded shall not be interfered with by the High Court.
In Sanna Karibasappa v. Mudegowdra Mahadevappa and Ors., 1978 (2)
Kar.L.J. 26 this Court has held that maintaining the order sheet and
recording the final order in English, a language not understood by all the
members of the Tribunal is a clear violation of the mandatory provisions
of Rule 17.
Sridhara babu. N
used to circumvent
the
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
the title by itself. But the said entries may have a corroborative value for
proving the title. In that view of the matter, it would be just and
appropriate that the name of the title holder namely the 4th respondent
who by virtue of the sale in favour of the partnership firm and subsequent
thereto by a registered partition between himself and his brother has
acquired title to the property, his name is to be entered. However, by
entry of such name, it cannot have any bearing on the possessory rights of
the parties concerned. Whoever, in possession would continue to be in
possession. The question of title and possession if any is in dispute the
same is within the domine of the Civil Court to adjudicate.
Sridhara babu. N
person who is not a member of the family can hold ten units or who has
no family or for a family can hold ten units and family can also hold ten
units. Therefore when an individual without a family is there, he is
entitled under law to hold ten units. The concept of joint family is quite
different from the statutory definition of the "family" provided under the
Act. By reading Section 2(12) together with Section 63(2) of the Act, it is
manifest that an individual whether male or female without a family is
also entitled to hold ten units. The mother in this case is an individual, a
person without a family and as per the definition, she is not included in
the family of her sons. So she is entitled to hold ten units. It is settled
principle of law that the interpretation of statutory legislation must be
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, we hold
that the mother is entitled for ten units.
As far as the jurisdiction issue is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of
Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. AIR 1969 SC 78, has laid down the principles
regarding exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court and the said principle are
as under:
(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals
the civil courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is
adequate remedy to do what the civil court would normally do in a suit.
Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the
provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao 2000 AIR SCW
2334 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to Dhulabhai
case(supra) laid down a test to be adopted in examining the question
whether jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded, as under: "The normal
rule of law is that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil
nature except those of which cognisance by them is either expressly or
impliedly excluded as provided under Section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption
to be drawn must be in favour of the existence rather than exclusion of
jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to try civil suit. The test adopted in
examining such a question is (i) whether the legislature intent to exclude
arises explicitly or by necessary implication, and (ii) whether the statute
in question provides for adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a
party aggrieved by an order made under it."
In the case of Irawwa and Ors. v. Krishnaji Venkatesh Naik and Ors. 1996
(2) KLJ 285 this Court has held that in respect of boundary dispute under
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, if a dispute arises, the same will
Sridhara babu. N
have to be decided by the Survey Officer and the Tahsildar and not by the
Civil Court.
In yet another decision, in the mm of Ramajois v. Chief secretary dealing
with a case arising out of an order passed by the Tahsildar under the Land
Revenue Act, 1964, this Court has held thus: The order in question having
been issued by the Tahsildar who is Revenue Officer subordinate to the
Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The
jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding
against the State Government on account of ay act or omission of the State
Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act,
unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or
other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law
for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an
express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the
remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an
express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the
appellant.
Whether the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to go into the issue
concerning fixing of boundaries, maintenance of boundaries of lands or
sub-division of lands came up for consideration in the case of Patel
Doddakempegowda v. Chikkeeregowda ILR 1986 KAR 2404 and dealing
with the said question, this Court has laid down the following provisions
of law: Section 61(e)(ii) of the Act not only lays down that the exclusive
jurisdiction is of Revenue Court, but also bars the jurisdiction of Civil
Courts...when the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hold that an entry
made in any record of revenue survey or settlement is wrong, it cannot, in
Sridhara babu. N
law proceed to grant the relief prayed for by the plaintiff because that
relief is based on such a finding to be recorded by the Civil Court. The
object behind Section 61 is to provide finality for the acts covered by it
and the other provisions Page 2282 of the Act viz., Sections 109 and 140.
It has been left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts to fix
the boundaries and maintain the boundaries of lands or sub-division of
lands, to fix the revenue and re-assess the revenue and so on. Civil Courts
are not permitted to have a hand in any of these matters.
confirming
the
order
passed
by
the
Assistant
Sridhara babu. N
Justice
V.G.
Sabhahit
of
Karnataka
High
Court
in
the
case
Justice V.G. Sabhahit of Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Umesh
N. Divagi And Ors. vs The State Of Karnataka Reported in 2007 (2)
KarLJ 140 The Deputy Commissioner has also observed in his order that
even though form No. 7 has been rejected, the land cannot be restored to
the petitioners by the revenue Authorities as the lessees have continued
to be in possession of the lease deed and they have continued after the
lease period is over and unless the possession is taken in accordance with
law, restoration cannot be done by the Revenue Authorities. Accordingly,
I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner in exercise of power of this Court under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India.
Sridhara babu. N
deed, mortgage, grant order or occupancy right. But in the instant case, no
such documents have been produced by the petitioners before the
revenue authorities to claim the land in question. The Deputy
Commissioner who had passed the impugned order at Annexure-L
holding that the petitioners herein have not at all produced the relevant
documents like registered sale deed, gift or mortgage deed, occupancy
right granted if any and the mutation entry confirmed by the Assistant
Commissioner is liable to be set aside. It is for the parties to prove their
title or right over the property before the Competent Civil Court.
Therefore, viewed from any angle, I do not find any good reasons to
interfere with the impugned order under challenge.
Justice N.K. Patil,
Sridhara babu. N
Justice V.G. Sabhahit of the Karnataka High Court in case of, Ramadurga
Dyavamma Alias R. ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. Reported
in 2007 (3) KarLJ 120 It is now well-settled that when there is delay in
filing the revision petition and application was filed for condoning the
delay, the application for condonation of delay has to be decided in the
first instance and only if the delay is condoned, the revision can be
disposed of on merits and revision cannot be disposed of without giving
finding in the application for condonation of delay as Revisional Authority
will get jurisdiction to decide the revision on merits only after the delay is
condoned and having regard to the fact that the Deputy Director has
disposed of the revision without considering the application for
condonation of delay and without affording opportunity to the petitioner
to substantiate the contention, I hold that the order passed by the Deputy
Director of Land Records, Bellary, impugned in the writ petition dated 30-
Sridhara babu. N
Justice Sabhahit J. in Appanna -v.- Lakkappa Devappa, 1983 (1) KLJ 482
on consideration of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act
pertaining to walikarki land has held that in the case of 'walikarki'
properties, when a regrant is made in the name of one of the members of
the family, who was performing the walikarki services, the grant enures
Sridhara babu. N
to the benefit of all the holders of that office in the family, and the
members of the family have a right to claim partition in the said regranted
land.
Nagesh Bisto Desai Etc. Etc vs Khando Tirmal Desai Etc. AIR 1982 SC 887,
1982 SCR (3) 341, Under s. 4 (1) of the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni
Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 and s. 7 of the Bombay Merged Territories
Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 all the watan lands were
re- granted to the plaintiff and he was deemed to be the occupant thereof
within the meaning of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. .. .. The
Watan Act contemplated two classes of persons. One is a larger class of
persons belonging to the watan families having a hereditary interest in
the watan property as such and other a smaller class of persons who were
appointed as representative watandars and who were liable for the
performance of duties connected with the office of such watandars. As
already indicated, it would not be correct to limit the word 'Watandar'
only to this narrow class of persons who could claim to have a hereditary
interest both in the watan property and in the hereditary office. Watan
property had always been treated as property belonging to the family and
all persons belonging to the watan family who had a hereditary interest in
such watan property were entitled to be called "watandars of the same
watan" within the Watan Act. .The effect of these Acts was to bring
out a change in the tenure or character of holding as watan lands but they
did not affect the other legal incidents of the property under the personal
law. That being so, the members of a joint Hindu family must be regarded
as holders of the watan land along with the watandar for the time being
and therefore regrant of the lands to the watandar under s. 4(1) of the
Sridhara babu. N
1950 Act and under s. 3 of the 1955 Act must enure to the benefit of the
entire joint Hindu family.
Doddamma vs Muniyamma And Ors. ILR 2005 KAR 568, 2005 (1) KarLJ
503 It is clear from the above said provisions of the Inams Abolition Act
and the provisions of the Land Reforms Act that so far as the rights of the
tenants are concerned, the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act
are similar to the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act though the
provisions may not be similar in respect of the owners of the lands under
Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Inam holders and inamdars under the
Inams Abolition Act. However, so far as the tenants are concerned, the
effect of the above said proceedings is that from the appointed date, the
relationship of the landlord and tenant ceases and the property vests with
the Government and the tenant is entitled to conferment of occupancy
right as per the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. The object of the
Inams Abolition Act as already culled out from the observations made in
MUNIRAJ's case (2004(3) KLJ 570) is to see that the applications attached
to the imams are abolished by vesting of the property in the State and the
tenants would get occupancy right under the Inams Abolition Act and in
substance, there is change of tenure and the property would vest with the
State absolutely free from all encumbrances and the relationship of
landlord and tenant ceases and on conferment of occupancy right, the
tenant would get the right under the Inams Abolition Act. While
considering the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and
dealing with the question as to whether the occupancy right granted in
favour of a member of the joint family would enure to the benefit of all the
members of the joint family and whether a civil suit can be filed for
partition and separate possession in respect of the occupancy right that is
Sridhara babu. N
granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of BALAWWA AND ANR. v. HASANABI AND ORS., (2000)
9 SCC 272 has observed as follows:- ..High Court was fully justified
in coming to the conclusion that the so-called order of the Land Tribunal
under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act would enure to the benefit of the
other members who were otherwise eligible for a share in the property in
question. Therefore, we see no infirmity with that conclusion so as to be
interfered with by this Court.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
behalf of the joint family. Under these circumstances, pendings the suit,
when the question arose whether the appellant or Joint family is the
tenant, that question should be decided by the Tribunal alone under
Section 48A read with Section 133 and not by the Civil Court.
(i) The Tribunal alone has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question
whether a person is a tenant or not of the land in question, and the Civil
Court has no jurisdiction or power to decide the same.
(ii) If a rival claim is made before Land Reforms Tribunal one party
contending that the tenancy rights exclusively belongs to himself and
another contending that tenancy rights belonging to the joint family and
therefore all of them are entitled to grant of occupancy rights, the
Tribunal has the jurisdiction to go into the question whether tenancy
rights claimed belongs exclusively to one of the member of the joint
family or it belongs to the joint family, as it is incidental and necessary to
decide the question of grant of occupancy rights.
(iii) If before grant of occupancy rights the Tribunal adjudicates the rival
claims and holds that the tenancy pleaded exclusively belongs to the
applicant in whose favour the occupancy right is granted and it does not
belong to the joint family, the parties have to challenge the said order
under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act only and the Civil Court has
no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the said decision of the Land
Sridhara babu. N
Tribunal nor can ignore the said finding and record a finding contrary to
the one recorded by the Tribunal in a suit for partition.
(iv) If tenancy is not disputed or rival claims by members of the joint
family are not put forth and agitated, after grant of occupancy rights by
the Tribunal, Civil Court can entertain a suit for partition in respect of
such property, decide whether such property is a joint family property or
the separate property of the applicant to whom the occupancy right is
granted, and grant a decree for partition.
(v) If the question of tenancy belonging to the joint family is raised before
the Land Tribunal and the Tribunal does nqt decide the said question one
way or other and leaves it to be decided by Civil Court; Civil Court is not
precluded from going into the said question after the tenancy rights has
been granted in favour of one of the claimants, while considering the
relief of partition.
(vi) The Civil Court alone has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for
partition and to grant the relief of partition and the Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to entertain and grant a decree for partition.
Justice N.Kumar in the case of Sri Parushuram Nemani Kuduchakar ... vs
Smt. Shantabai Ramachandra Reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3355, 2004 (6)
KarLJ 275 summarised the point of law on the subject as follows:- The
division of the ryotwari properties and the parties not living together are
not relevant. The suit lands are the Shet-Sanadi lands attached to the
village office. As long as the village office continued, the suit lands were to
go along with the village office and were to be enjoyed by the holder at
the village office. They came to be released from the category of shethsanadi inam lands and became ryotwari lands and available for partition
only on the abolition of the village office and regrant of the same under
Sridhara babu. N
Section 5 of the Act. Till then the plaintiffs could not have sought for
partition and possession of their shares in the suit lands. Therefore, the
fact that the plaintiffs and the defendants had divided their ryotwari
properties and were living separately for a long period is of no
consequence and does not have any bearing on the right to seek partition
of the suit lands which had accrued to them only on 3-9-1973.
Accordingly, the contention is rejected.
RELEVANCY
OF
STATEMENT
PROCEEDINGS 2003 SC
MADE
DURING
MUTATION
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
proceeding or that it was shown that the statements have been made
before a person authorized by law to take evidence. The statements
during the mutation proceedings were all after the disputes arose
between parties and being self-serving claims and assertions in support of
the very claims of the person making it which are seriously disputed, in
the absence of any independent corroboration cannot be taken to be
conclusive evidence sufficient in law to substantiate those facts sought to
and necessitated, to be proved by the plaintiff to claim the relief. By the
same standards, which the appellants seek to apply to the appreciation of
their case, if the materials produced on behalf of the first defendant are
also adjudged, the entries in the School Admission Register and School
Leaving Certificate made long before even any dispute between parties
arose, pertaining to defendant describing late 'G' as the father, cannot be
brushed aside.
Evidence on record that plaintiffs mother was earlier married to another
person and that even when she joined 'G', the plaintiff was already a child,
would militate against the normal presumption that would be available to
be drawn on account of long cohabitation, as also the parentage of the
original plaintiff.
It cannot be said that in the light of the finding by the Division Bench that
defendant has not proved his adoption, the relief of possession at least
should have been granted in favour of the plaintiff. The Division Bench,
when it reversed the findings of the Single Judge and directed the
dismissal of the suit, was not obliged in law, to grant any relief of
possession alone when it was not proved by the plaintiff otherwise,
dehors title that she had been in actual possession of the property and
had
wrongfully
and
forcibly
been
dispossessed
by
defendant.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
be entitled to hold land; and that it shall not be lawful for, a company inter
alia to hold `any land'. Further sub- section (2) of Section 79B states that
the company which holds lands on the date of the commencement of the
Amendment Act and which is disentitled to hold lands under sub-section
(1), shall within ninety days from the said date furnish to the Tahsildar
within whose jurisdiction the greater part of such land is situated a
declaration containing the particulars of such land and such other
particulars as may be prescribed; and which acquires such land after the
said date shall also furnish a similar declaration within the prescribed
period. Sub- section (3) of Section 79B states that the Tahsildar shall, on
receipt of the declaration under sub- section (2) and after such enquiry as
may be prescribed, send a statement containing the prescribed
particulars relating to such land to the Deputy Commissioner who shall,
by notification, declare that such land shall vest in the State Government
free from all encumbrances and take possession thereof in the prescribed
manner. Sub- section (4) of Section 79B states that in respect of the land
vesting in the State Government under that section an amount as
specified in Section 72 shall be paid. Explanation to Section 79B states
that for the purpose of that section it shall be presumed that a land is held
by an institution, trust, company, association or body where it is held by
an individual on its behalf. Section 80 bars transfer of any land to nonagriculturists, which says that no sale, gift or exchange or lease of any
land or interest therein etc. shall be lawful in favour of a person who is
disentitled under Section 79A or 79B to acquire or hold any land.
The first appellant being a company was, therefore, prohibited from
holding any agricultural land after the commencement of the Act. If the
company was holding any land with Linaloe cultivation on the date of the
commencement of the Act, the same would have vested in the State
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
said mutation entry by the plaintiff was not successful. The defendant also
obtained a decree of permanent injunction against the plaintiff. The
material on record shows that he was cultivating the land and he has
raised (sic) trees and on 18.08.1982 he has handed over possession of the
property from that day till today. Ignoring all these material evidence on
record only relying on the interested testimony of the plaintiff and his
witness, whose evidence, as already stated do not infuse confidence, the
courts below have recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in possession
and the first defendant in not in possession. The said finding is perverse
and capricious and cannot be sustained.
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Hardatt Sharma v.
Jaikishen Shamlal & Sons reported AIR 1983 J & K-page No. 36, held as
under: ...True, Under Section 18 of Evidence Act, statements made by
persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in
the subject matter of the suit, are binding on such parties as their
admission, nevertheless, before the same may bind them, it has further to
be shown that the statements were made by those persons during the
continuance of their interest in the subject matter, and obviously so,
because, if would be highly unjust and improper to divest a person of his
right in the property, lawfully acquired by him form another, on the basis
of the latter's admission after his own interest in the property has ceased
to exist.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Order was passed in 1950, the Bhovi caste mentioned in the order was
the same as the Voddar caste. In appeal to Supreme Court it was
contended that the High Court was wrong in considering the evidence and
then coming to the conclusion that the caste Bhovi mentioned in the
Order was meant for the caste Voddar and that the Tribunal' should have
declined to allow evidence to be produced which would have the effect of
modifying the Order issued by the President. Supreme Court held that the
evidence clearly showed that in 1950 when the Order was passed there
was no caste in the then Mysore State which was known as Bhovi and the
Order could not have intended to recognise a caste which did not exist. It
was therefore necessary to find out which caste was meant by the use of
the name Bhovi and for that purpose evidence was rightly recorded by the
Tribunal and acted upon by the High Court. Supreme Court accordingly
confirmed the, view of the High Court.
Sridhara babu. N
respondent contested the suit alleging, inter alia, that her husband did not
constitute a joint Hindu family with the appellants at the time of his death
and also that the suit was barred by time as she had become owner and
possessor of the land in suit in 1925 on the death of her husband when
the entries in her favour were made, and the suit was brought in 1951.
The respondent had admitted in certain documents about the existence of
the joint Hindu family or a joint Hindu family firm.
HELD:- There is a strong presumption in favour of Hindu brothers
constituting a joint family. It is for the person alleging severance of joint
Hindu family to establish it. The mere fact of the mutation entry being
made in favour of the respondent on the death of her husband was no
clear indication that there was no joint Hindu family of the appellant, and
the respondent's husband at the time of the latter's death.
Sridhara babu. N
can be taken to that view at all. In fact, this view is consistent with what
has been stated by this Court........"
Sridhara babu. N
intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true
owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitle to defend against the
rightful owner much be a settled possession extending over a sufficiently
long period and acquiesced in by the true owner. A casual act of
possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the
rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and reinstate himself
provided he does not use more force than necessary, such entry will be
viewed only as a resistance to an intrusion upon possession which has
never been lost. The persons in possession by a stray act of trespass, a
possession which has not matured into settled possession, constitute an
unlawful assembly, giving right to the true owner, though not in actual
possession at the time to remove the obstruction even by using necessary
force."
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
the possession or encumbrance on the property and that would form the
basis for him to go for negotiations and to purchase the property or get
the property transferred in his name in any mode of transfer provided
under the Transfer of Property Act. It is being noticed that neither the
purchaser nor the registering authority are performing their obligations
soon after such transfers are taking place by way of registration and reconveyance and transfer the title or interest from the vendor to the
vendee or transferee. In this regard what is being noticed is, when the
original entries in the revenue records continue even after such transfers
or assignments, the person who is interested in purchasing the property
is being mislead on some assurance or some false promise and gets into
problems in fighting litigation with the prior purchasers. If
the said fact of earlier sale or transfer would not have been disclosed by
the original purchaser or registering authorities it not only leads to
multiplicity of proceedings but also causes financial hardship to the
subsequent purchasers of the same property which had been sold earlier
to some other purchaser. For want of knowledge, even for an ordinary
man of prudence mere enquiry with the revenue authorities would not be
sufficient because of the fact the revenue authorities have only
maintained the original entries in the usual course as is noticed in the
years of practice, without making proper timely entries of such change of
title from the original owner to the subsequent purchase or from original
transferor to the tranferee. This anomaly is invariably found in all the
records maintained for want of compliance of the provisions of Section
128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 although the Act
mandates such entry to be made within a reasonable time after following
the procedure under the said sections. For want of such strict compliance
by the purchaser or for lack of responsibility and inaction on the part of
the registering authorities in intimating this aspect to the revenue
Sridhara babu. N
authorities well within time, the ordinary man is forced to go through the
ordeal of fighting litigation and often it is also being noticed even in
respect of carrying out mutation entries on subsequent changes like
succeeding to the property as legal heirs on the death of the original
propositus, such anomalies are occurring and even the lands which are
notified for acquisition are also notified in the name of the original
kathedar in whose name the property stands although he has died several
years back, for want of entries of the names of persons who succeed him
and who are in real possession or cultivation of the property are not
notified. These anomalies have to be rectified to avoid all such
complications and it requires due compliance of Section 128 & 129 of the
Land Revenue Act. Though the law is clear on the point, but it is either not
meticulously followed or being implemented and thus causing various
litigation and hardship to the parties and also at the cost of the State
exchequer as well Of course, while referring to the right of
this petitioner what is being noticed specifically is the anomaly that is
being invariably found and neglected by the revenue authorities all
because of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 128 & 129 of the
Land Revenue Act which is clear as is noted above. It is time to remind the
Government to take timely action to make necessary changes from time to
time in the revenue records. The Sub-registrars are duty bound to
intimate the revenue authorities in time as per Section 128(4) to avoid
multiplicity of litigation from the hands of unscrupulous vendors who
once again transfer the property although a transaction has already taken
place in the hands of one of the purchasers and the timely action of the
revenue authorities would form the basis for any subsequent purchaser
who intends to purchase the property over whom fraud could not be
played by the original transferor or the vendor when there is a transfer
from the first party to the second party and thereby once again the first
Sridhara babu. N
party shall not venture to transfer title or interest to a third party or any
other person for lack of knowledge of the intended subsequent
purchaser. For want of these entries in the revenue records
and for want of proper information from the concerned Department of
the Government, often purchasers are being mislead and get into
problems and hardship. It is high time to intimate the Revenue
Department and the concerned Department to meticulously follow the
procedure as provided under Section 128 & 129 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act and also it should be made mandatory as a matter of
responsibility on the part of the Government to save the public from the
precarious situation and also there shall be timely action by the revenue
authorities without there being any delay on their part in making entries
in the mutation register and other registers in the revenue office and in
the Corporation/Municipality in city limits to avoid future complications.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Hardatt Sharma v.
Jaikishen Shamlal & Sons reported AIR 1983 J & K-page No. 36, held as
under: ...True, Under Section 18 of Evidence Act, statements made by
persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in
the subject matter of the suit, are binding on such parties as their
admission, nevertheless, before the same may bind them, it has further to
be shown that the statements were made by those persons during the
continuance of their interest in the subject matter, and obviously so,
because, if would be highly unjust and improper to divest a person of his
right in the property, lawfully acquired by him form another, on the basis
of the latter's admission after his own interest in the property has ceased
to exist.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Whether the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to go into the issue
concerning fixing of boundaries, maintenance of boundaries of lands or
sub-division of lands came up for consideration in the case of Patel
Doddakempegowda v. Chikkeeregowda ILR 1986 KAR 2404 and dealing
with the said question, this Court has laid down the following provisions
of law: Section 61(e)(ii) of the Act not only lays down that the exclusive
jurisdiction is of Revenue Court, but also bars the jurisdiction of Civil
Courts...when the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hold that an entry
made in any record of revenue survey or settlement is wrong, it cannot, in
law proceed to grant the relief prayed for by the plaintiff because that
relief is based on such a finding to be recorded by the Civil Court. The
object behind Section 61 is to provide finality for the acts covered by it
and the other provisions Page 2282 of the Act viz., Sections 109 and 140.
It has been left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts to fix
the boundaries and maintain the boundaries of lands or sub-division of
Sridhara babu. N
lands, to fix the revenue and re-assess the revenue and so on. Civil Courts
are not permitted to have a hand in any of these matters.
THE
HONBLE
JUSTICE
N.K.
Jain,
THE
HONBLE
JUSTICE
Sridhara babu. N
documents
on
the
ground
of
fraud,
undue
influence,
Sridhara babu. N
"(13). Pot kharab means a piece of pieces of land classed as unarable and
included in a survey number".
The description has no relevance to ownership. The expression put
kharab is explained in Gupte's book on the Bombay Land Revenue Code in
the following words at page 278""By the term 'pot kharab' is meant 'barren or uncultivable land included
in an assessed survey number' and includes 'any land comprised in a
survey number. Which from any reason is held not to be likely to be
brought under cultivation..........."
31. The words phut Kharab, therefore, mean and have reference to a land
which is included in an assessed survey number but which is unfit for
cultivation. After coming into the force of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act 1964 the word phut Kharab has been defined under Rule 21(2) as
under"during the process of classification, land included as unarable shall be
treated as "Pot Kharab". Pot Kharab land may be classified as follows.
(a) That which is classified as unfit for agriculture at the time of survey
including the farm buildings or threshing flours of the holder; (b) That
which is not assessed because, (i) it is reserved or assigned for public
purpose; (ii) it is occupied by a road or recognised footpath or by a tank
or stream used by persons other than the holders for irrigation, drinking
or domestic purposes; (iii) used as burial ground or cremation ground;
(iv) assigned for villager potteries."
Sridhara babu. N
32. Therefore, it becomes clear if the land falls within the category of
21(2)(a) it is not a government land, it belongs to the ownership of the
petitioners. If it falls under 21(2)(b) then it belongs to the government
and the petitioners cannot have a claim over the said land. However,
when the petitioners claim that the said land falls within 21(2)(a) and
therefore they are entitled to the compensation LAO proceeds on the
assumption that it falls within Section 22(1)(b) and therefore they are not
entitled to compensation as it belongs to the government and accordingly
he has declined to pass any award. It is not in dispute that before arriving
at such a conclusion the LAO has not given an opportunity to the
petitioners in the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act to substantiate their
contention. Without any such enquiry, without affording an opportunity
to the petitioners he proceeds on the assumption that the said Kharab
land falls within 22(1)(b) and therefore petitioners have no claim, as such
he has declined to pass the award. The Land Acquisition Officer is
directed to hold an enquiry under Section 11 of the Act and to pass award
setting out the true extent of the land acquired, the compensation payable
for the said land and then if he is of the opinion the claimants are not the
owners of the said land the said land belongs to the government to
apportion the compensation accordingly. If any request is made by the
petitioners for reference under Section 18(1) of the Act within the time
prescribed under law then to make a reference under Section 18(1) of the
Act to the Civil Court for adjudication.
Sridhara babu. N
of
Srimanmaharaja
Niranjana
Jagadguru
Mallikarjuna
Sridhara babu. N
title and, therefore, the agreement holder, even assuming that the
agreement is valid, does not acquire any title to the property."
There cannot be any dispute that under Section 133 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, an entry shall be presumed to be true until the
contrary is proved. Thus, the presumption is rebuttable. Contrary facts
may be established by the circumstances of the case or by other evidence
found in the records. Presumption shall have to be drawn only at the
outset of the case, since it may get diluted, rebutted or over run in the
course of the trial. The role of record of rights, thus, essentially, is in the
realm of appreciation of evidence in a case. In this matter as
aforementioned, this Court is of the firm view that the admissions made
by the respondents 3 and 4 and their witness and other circumstances of
the case are sufficient to displace the presumption arising from the
entries in the pahanies. There is no abstract principle that whatever
appear in the revenue records will be presumed to be correct when it is
borne out by the evidence that the entries are not correct In this context it
is relevant to note the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of
Baleshwar Tewari (dead) by LRs. and Ors. v. Sheo Jatan Tiwary and Ors.
(1997)5 SCC 112, . ...Entries in revenue records is the paradise of the
patwari and the tiller of the soil is rarely concerned with the same. So long
as his possession and enjoyment is not interdicted by due process and
course of law, he is least concerned with entries. It is common knowledge
in rural India that a raiyat always regards the lands he ploughs, as his
dominion and generally obeys, with moral fiber the command of the
intermediary so long as his possession is not disturbed. Therefore,
creation of records is a camouflage to defeat just and legal right or claim
Sridhara babu. N
and interest of the raiyat, the tiller of the soil whom the Act confers title to
the land he tills.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baleshwar Tewari vs.
Sheo Jatan Tiwari & Others reported in (1997)5 SCC 112, in para 15 as
under: "15. Under these circumstances, even if any enquiry was
conducted unless the appellant is given notice and an opportunity to
adduce the evidence to establish his right in the enquiry made, the finding
generally does not bind him.Entries in Revenue records is the paradise of
the patwari and the tiller of the soil is rarely concerned with the same. So
long as his possession and enjoyment is not interdicted by due process
and course of law, he is least concerned with entries. It is common
knowledge in rural India that a raiyat always regards the land he ploughs
as his dominion and generally obeys, with moral fibre the command of the
intermediary so long as his possession is not disturbed. Therefore,
creation of records is a camouflage to defeat just and legal right or claim
and interest of the raiyat, the tiller of the soil on whom the Act confers
title to the land he tills."
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur
& Others reported in (1996)6 SCC 223, in paragraph no. 7 as under:
"7...............Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or
extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables
the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue
in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in
coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title
in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire
judgment............................"
Sridhara babu. N
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shri Keshav Ram And Ors AIR 1997 SC 2181
The courts below committed serious error of law in declaring plaintiffs'
title on the basis of the aforesaid order of correction and the
consequential entry in the Revenue papers. .. "4. In view of the rival
contentions, the question that arises for consideration is whether the
plaintiffs have been able to establish their title and the Courts below were
justified in declaring plaintiffs title. As has been stated earlier the only
piece of evidence on which the Courts below relied upon to decree the
plaintiffs' suit is the alleged order made by the Assistant Settlement
Officer directing correction of the record of right. The order in question so
not there on record but the plaintiffs relied upon the register where the
correct appears to have been given effect to . The question therefore
arises as to whether the entry in the settlement papers recording
somebody's name could create or extinguish title in favour of the person
concerned..It is to be seen that the disputed land originally stood
recorded in the name of Raja Sahib of Keonthal and thereafter the State
was recorded to be the owner of the land an the record of right prepared
in the year 1949-50. In the absence of the very order of the Assistant
Settlement Officer directing necessary correction to be made in favour of
the plaintiffs, it is not possible to visualize on what basis the aforesaid
direction had been made. But at any rate such an entry in the Revenue
papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of
title in favour of the plaintiffs. In our considered opinion the Courts below
committed serious error of law in declaring plaintiffs title on the basis of
aforesaid order of correction and the consequential entry in the Revenue
Sridhara babu. N
papers. In the circumstances the appeal is allowed and the judgment and
decree passed in all the three forums are set aside. The plaintiffs'' suit
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs"
Court in Anna Rao and Others v Gundareddy and Others, ILR 1997 KAR
1998 which is extracted below: "It is not permissible for the Revenue
Officer to order for correction of the entries in the Record of Rights and
Pahanies by deleting the names of the petitioners and in its place, by
entering the name of the State Government after about 43 years from the
date of the entry made in the revenue records, in exercise of the power
conferred on him under Section 25 of the Act. The names of the
petitioners continued to exist in the Record of Rights and Pahanies ever
since the year 1950-51 up-to-date. The period of limitation to claim
adverse possession against the State is 30 years. Even assuming that
Section 25 of the Act confers power on the second respondent to direct
rectification of entries in the revenue records, the said power was
required to be exercised by the second respondent within a reasonable
time from the date of the entry made in the revenue records entering the
names of the petitioners. It is well-settled principle of law that when
power is conferred on an authority to effectuate a purpose, it has to be
exercised in a reasonable manner and the exercise of power in a
reasonable manner inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable
time".
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
ILR 1998
KAR 2757, 1998 (5) KarLJ 36 The provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue
Act and rules have been amended from time to time enabling the revenue
authorities to find out extra land of the Government for distribution
among landless and other needy persons. Section 94-A of the said Act is
amended for the specific purpose of constituting the Land Grant
Committee. The Government of Karnataka thought it fit to introduce Rule
108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules of 1966. Under this special
rule, the Government has directed the authorities to reserve certain
Government lands for the purpose notified therein which reads as
follows.-- "Certain lands not to be granted.--Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Chapter, lands assigned for special purpose under
Section 71 of the Act, and lands described in revenue records as
Devarakadu, Urduve, Gunduthope, Tankbed, Phut Kareb Kharab Halla,
date reserve, burial grounds and such lands which in the opinion of the
Government is required for public purpose, shall not be granted".
Devarakadu, Urduve, Gunduthope, Tankbed, Phut Kareb Kharab Halla,
date reserve, burial grounds can only be found in the revenue records. In
fact, one finds it difficult even to locate a Gunduthope or a Tankbed in the
villages. The gomal lands and the gunduthope is a gift to the villagers.
They have been tampered with successfully from time to time by the
special orders of the Deputy Commissioners unmindful of the strength of
the cattle, the need of the people and the purpose for which the lands
have been reserved. Though, relevant provisions are very much found in
the statute book, the authorities empowered to enforce these provisions
Sridhara babu. N
under the Land Revenue Act and Rules have failed to take special care to
preserve these lands for the purpose they have been specifically assigned.
The quality of the rural life can only be maintained by providing free
pasturage to cattle, preserving Gokatte for providing drinking water to
the cattle, protecting and preserving Gunduthope where the villagers find
some shade for the people and the livestock. It is true that civilisation has
entered the life of the rural people by way of roads, electricity, water,
rural health and education. These are absolutely necessary for improving
the quality of life of the rural people. But, the very essence of village life
consists in preserving the lands reserved under Section 71 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Rules, 1966. We hardly find a plot consisting of a few well grown trees in
the villages. Those are the realms of the past. It, therefore, becomes an
urgent necessity for this Court to remind all those concerned who are
empowered to enforce these statutory provisions of Land Revenue Act
and Rules made thereunder to act and to give effect to every word and
letter of statute. The Deputy Commissioners of the districts who are
directly incharge of these lands have to be reminded of their duty to
protect and preserve these lands specially reserved by the Government.
The newly constituted panchayaths in the Panchayath Raj Act are duty
bound to protect and preserve and to raise Gunduthope and to maintain
Sarkari gomals. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioners are now directed to
give effect to the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and to preserve and
reserve all these lands specified in the Act for the very purpose specified
therein. The Deputy Commissioners shall direct the respective
panchayaths to protect and raise these Gunduthopes situated in the
respective villages and to further direct the Tahsildar of the Taluk to
preserve the gomals for free pasturage. The Deputy Commissioners shall
take action through the Tahsildar to evict persons who have been in
Sridhara babu. N
Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short, 'the Act'),
the Deputy Commissioner has the power to set apart the lands for free
pasturage for village cattle and said reservation is subject to the orders
and notifications passed by the Government from time to time.
Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, which reads as follows:
"27. Powers of the State Government--Notwithstanding anything
contained in the preceding rules, the State Government may, suo motu, or
on the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner or the Deputy
Commissioner, if it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of any case
or classes of cases, it is just and reasonable to relax any of the provisions
of these rules, it may, by order direct such relaxation, recording the
reasons for such relaxation, subject to such conditions as may be specified
in the orders and thereupon lands may be granted in such a case or
classes of cases in accordance with such direction".
Under Section 69 of the Act, the lands belonging to the Government can be
disposed of for the purposes of agriculture, industry or any public utility.
Section 94A of the Act empowers the Committees constituted thereunder
to regularise the unauthorised occupation of lands. Section 94B of the
KLR Act commences with non-abstante clause Notwithstanding anything
Sridhara babu. N
contained in this Act" and states that if the Deputy Commissioner or other
officer authorised by the State Government is satisfied, can make
recommendations
to
the
Committee
for
the
regularisation
of
Sridhara babu. N
Sections 67, 69 and 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 read as
under:
"67. Public roads, etc., and all lands which are not the property of others
belong to the Government-(1) All public roads, streets, lanes and paths,
Sridhara babu. N
bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the
sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark and of rivers,
streams, nallas, takes and tanks and all canals and water-courses and all
standing and flowing waters, and all lands wherever situated which are
not the property of individuals or of aggregate of persons legally capable
of holding property, and except in so far as any right of such persons may
be established, in or over the same, and except as may be otherwise
provided in any law for the time being in force, are and are hereby
declared to be with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto,
the property of the State Government.
Explanation: In this section, "high-water mark" means the highest point
reached by ordinary spring ties at any season of the year.
(2) where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by
or on behalf of the State Government or by any person as against the State
Government, it shall be lawful for the Deputy Commissioner or a Survey
Officer not lower in rank than a Deputy Commissioner, after formal
inquiry to pass an order deciding the claim.
(3) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (2) or in
appeal or revision therefrom may institute a civil suit contesting the order
within a period of one year from the date of such order and the final
decision in the civil suit shall be binding on the parties.
69. Disposal of lands or other property belonging to State Government
under Section 67 Subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, the
State
Government,
the
Divisional
Commissioner,
the
Deputy
Sridhara babu. N
71. Lands may be assigned for special purposes and when assigned, shall
not be otherwise used without sanction of the Deputy CommissionerSubject to the general orders of the State Government, Survey Officers,
whilst survey operations are preceding under this Act, and at any other
time, the Deputy Commissioner, may set apart lands, which are the
property of the State Government and not in the lawful occupation of any
person of aggregate of persons in any village or portions of a village, for
free pasturage for the village cattle, for forest reserves or for any other
public purpose; and lands assigned specially for any such purpose shall
not be otherwise use without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner,
and in the disposal of lands under Section 69 due regard shall be had to all
such special assignments."
Rules 97 and 108-I of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 read as under:
"97. Providing free pasturage (1) Government land shall be set apart for free pasturage for the cattle of
each village at the rate of twelve hectareas for every handred heads of
cattle. Explanation- In calculating the heads of cattle or goats, sheep or
calves or cow of buffalo shall be taken as equivalent to one head of cattle.
(2) If there is sufficient forest area in the village concerned or in the
adjoining village to enable the village cattle to graze, the area to be set
apart as free pasturage may be reduced correspondingly.
(3) If there is no grazing land available in a village, or the land available
falls short of the extent prescribed under sub-rule (1) the deficit may be
made up by setting apart Government land available in the adjacent
village.
(4) The Deputy Commissioner shall determine the extent of land
necessary to be set apart for free pasturage in any village. If in the opinion
of the Deputy Commissioner the extent of pasturage should exceed the
minimum prescribed in Sub-rule(1) he may so set apart such larger extent
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
that mutation proceedings are not judicial proceedings but are in the
nature of fiscal enquiries in the interest of the State for revenue collection.
Mutation proceedings and orders passed by Revenue authorities cannot
be treated as conclusive evidence for determination of proprietary title to
immovable properties.
WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST THE DEFAULTER HAD
WOULD STAND TRANSFERRED TO THE AUCTION PURCHASER AND
NOTHING MORE
NAGESH ALIAS NAGAPPA GANAPATHY HEGDE v. SYNDICATE BANK, ILR
(Kar) 1981 477 that the title in the property sold in public auction under
Chapter XIV of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 passes to the
auction purchaser on the confirmation of sale and the sale certificate
under Section 179 of the Act is only on confirmation of the sale under
Section 177 of the Act and thus the issue of a sale certificate is the
consequence of confirmation of sale and also that the right title and
interest of the defaulter in such property shall cease and the same shall
stand transferred to the auction purchaser. It only makes clear that
whatever right, title and interest the defaulter had would stand
transferred to the auction purchaser and nothing more.
THE LONG COURSE OF ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS CANNOT BE
IGNORED IN PREFERENCE TO THE ENTRIES
FOR A SOLITARY
YEAR.
Sridhara babu. N
with regard to entries in the revenue records. It pointed out that the
presumption arising from several entries in the revenue records of large
number of years in respect of ownership and possession of land with
certain person does not stand rebutted by mere stray entries in favour of
other when the evidence is of uncertain character and is inadequate. ..
The long course of entries which were consistently in favour of the
Archakas cannot be ignored in preference to the entries in favour of the
temple for a solitary year.
ENTRIES IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS DO NOT BY THEMSELVES
CHANGE THE NATURE OR CHARACTER OF A TENURE
Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of STATE OF MYSORE
v. KAINTHAJE TIMMANNNA, 1968(2) Mys.LJ. 227 commonly referred to
as Thimmanna Bhat's case. The Decision was rendered in a suit for
declaration that the suit lands were "redeemed lands" and for injunction
directing the State to issue passes for transport or removal of timber
without payment of seignorage. The lands were shown in the Record of
Rights pertaining to the period between 1911 and 1916 as "redeemed
lands. The plaintiff had been granted patta by the commissioner of Coorg
in 1911 showing that they were redeemed lands". However in 1918 there
had been a change in the nature of tenure of the lands showing that they
were "unredeemed". The records relating to the passing of the order in
1918 were not available. Reliance was only placed on the entries in the
Record of Rights from the Jamabandi Register relating to the years 1916
to 1921 in which reference to the order of the Commissioner of 1918 was
made. In such a situation the learned Judges held that the presumption
that the entries relating to the change of tenure should be taken to have
been lawfully and regularly made in the course of the performance of
Sridhara babu. N
official duties and in due compliance with the procedure enjoined by law
(under Section 39 of the Coorg Regulation and Section 114 of the
Evidence Act) could not be drawn. If the order in question had been one
that was made in the exercise of the power under Section 29 of the Coorg
Regulation, which is the provision, which should have been resorted to for
the purpose of preparation and revision of the Record of Rights, it should
have been issued and published by the Chief Commissioner by
notification and one such notification or publication thereof in the Official
Gazette has been made available. Any preparation of the Record of Rights
or revision thereof could be done only by the Chief Commissioner by
means of a notification that such Record of Rights be made or be specially
revised. The Commissioner was an authority different from the Chief
Commissioner at the relevant point of time. As under the Regulation
certain conditions had to be fulfilled before making revision of the entries
in the Record of Rights and such conditions related not only to the
procedure but also to the existence of certain conditions precedent, and
those conditions precedent were absent, the act done would not be
entitled to the protection of the presumption under Section 114 of the
Evidence Act. This Decision was quoted with approval by the Supreme
Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. K.V. KHADER, . 1990 AIR
1225, 1990 SCR (1) 727 The ratio of the two Decisions is that the entries
in the Record of Rights do not by themselves change the nature or
character of a tenure.
Sridhara babu. N
Rights that would give rise to cause of action...Mere adverse entry in the
Record of Rights in respect of the property in the possession of the
plaintiff cannot be taken as real threat to the right of the plaintiff to the
property in his possession. The trial Court rightly observed that Section
22 and Article 113 of the Limitation Act are not attracted in as much as
the plaintiff was seeking relief with regard to the declaration of his title
regarding the nature of the tenure and there is nothing to show that cause
of action accrued at some point of time which rendered the suit barred by
time.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but
it is clear, the distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of
what the entry in the revenue record states, but the entry is open to the
attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery
rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to
possessory title".
In
D.S.
LAKSHMINARAYANA
RAO
v.
THE
LAND
TRIBUNAL,
DODDABALLAPUR AND ORS. ILR 1980 KAR 283 this Court has held that
the conversion of land would be complete when once permission was
granted or to deemed to have been granted and actual levy of fine is only
a subsequent formality. Such a land is not a land as defined in the Act and
therefore did not attract the provisions of the Act.
Sridhara babu. N
Court in Mohan Balaku Patil and others vs. Krishnoji Bhaurao Hundre
(Dead)by LRs. [(2000) 1 SCC 518], dealing with the presumption available
as to the correctness of entries in the record of rights under Section 133
of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and displacement of such
presumption by a finding of fact to the contrary in enquiry made by the
Tribunal under Section 48-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in
paragraph 4 has observed, "When, in fact, the Tribunal made local enquiry
by spot inspection and had come to the conclusion that the appellants
were in possession, that factor should have weighed with the appellate
authority............ Presumption arising under Section 133 of the Act in
respect of the entries made in the Record of Rights stood displaced by the
finding of fact recorded that the appellants were in actual possession of
the land and were cultivating the same............"
Sridhara babu. N
any service by the inamdar. It is also contended that the Index of Lands
and Record of Rights would not be in existence before the vesting of the
village in the State. Therefore, proceeding on such entries to address a
circumstance as to the nature of the land much prior to the said entries
being made, would not offer any authenticity. . On the other hand, the
entry made in Form No.8 is the official valid record prepared by the
Tahsildar, on the basis of the material evidence of the nature of the land
with reference to the relevant document in the custody of the then
inamdar. Section 11 of the Inams Abolition Act, required maintenance of a
register with effect from the date of vesting, containing the details of the
nature of the land. The circumstance that there was no entry in the
Barabaruthi Register, would also fortify the fact that this was not service
inam land on the date of vesting.
HOLDER OF HERIDITARY VILLAGE OFFICE
SRI KEMPAIAH VS CHIKKABORAMMA AIR 1998 SC 3335 The object
of Karnataka Village offices Abolition Act, 1961 is to abolish village offices
which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the
Constitution and the emoluments appertaining thereto and to provide for
incidental maters. 'Village office' has been defined under the Act as to
mean a village office to which emoluments have been attached and which
is held hereditarily before the commencement of the Constitution under
an existing law relating to such office for the performance of duties
mentioned therein; "holder of a village office" or "holder" would mean a
person having an interest in a village office under an existing law relating
to such office. By no stretch of imagination appellant can lay claim to any
such office. No material was placed by him to show that he held the office
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
said that the plaintiffs were either in possession of the property or are the
owner of the property.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
period. On the strength of such entries tenancy claim was put forth, which
was granted by the Land Tribunal without application of mind.
RELEVANCY OF ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS
Entries in Revenue Records neither confer any title nor extinguish the
title already existing. Balwant Singhs case: AIR 1997 SC 2719.
Jama bandi is a land revenue demand. Jama bandi entries alone will not
create title in the person whose name is found in such records. Jatturam
case: AIR 1994 SC 1653.
If a name is entered in revenue records, a presumption arises in favour of
the person and unless and until the presumption is rebutted, the entries
have to be considered as true and correct. M/S Ashok Leyland Ltd case:
2004 (5) Supreme 115, Syedabad Tea Co. Ltd case: AIR 1983 SC 72, State
of Maharastra case: AIR 1985 SC 716.
However, the entries in revenue records alone will not convey title or will
not have the effect of extinguishing the already existing title. B. Singh &
Anr case: AIR 1997 SC 2719.
If there are two sets of revenue records regarding the same property and
their entries conflicting then the latest of the records will prevail.
M.Pandey & Ors case: AIR 1981 Cal 74.
Mutation entries can neither create title nor extinguish title and such
entries cannot be treated as evidence of sale. Major P.S. Atwad case: AIR
1995 SC 2125.
Sridhara babu. N
Entries in revenue records which are unchanged fairly for a long time will
not be rebutted by some stray entries. Sri Bhimeshwara Swamivaru
Temple case: AIR 1973 SC 1299.
ONCE NAME OF GRANTEE IS ENTERED IN RECORD OF RIGHTS ON
THE BASIS OF ORDER OF GRANT, NAME CANNOT BE DELETED FROM
RECORDS, UNLESS GRANT HAS BEEN REVOKED IN PROPERLY
CONSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS BY AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO
REVOKE GRANT
Entry in Record of Rights:- Once name of grantee is entered in record of
rights on the basis of order of grant, name cannot be deleted from
records, unless grant has been revoked in properly constituted
proceedings by authority competent to revoke grant. M.N.Venkateshaiahs
case before KHC (DB) , decided on 05-10-05 reported in 2005(6) KarLJ
452 (DB).
KHARAB LAND IS ALSO CAPABLE OF OWNERSHIP WHICH MUST BE
ACQUIRED IN THE SAME WAY AS CULTIVABLE LAND
In Saudagar asul vs State of Kar, reported in ILR 1973 Kar 56. The title to
kharab land is clarified by Karnataka High Court. Kharab land is
uncultivable land classified for the purposes of revenue exemption. It
cannot be regarded as adjunct to adjoining cultivable land, which gets
transferred along with cultivable land. Kharab land is also capable of
ownership which must be acquired in the same way as cultivable land.
MUTATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE REVENUE RECORD WILL NOT
EXTINGUISH TITLE NOR HAS IT ANY PRESUMPTIVE VALUE ON TITLE.
Sridhara babu. N
The legal effect of mutation, according to the learned counsel, has been
clearly laid down by this court in a recent judgment in
Smt. Inder Kaur & Other (1996 (7) JT SC 580). According to the learned
counsel, mutation of the property in the revenue record will not
extinguish
Sridhara babu. N
In ILR 1998 Kar. 1 [State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Keshav Ram and
Others]; wherein the Apex Court referring to the provisions of Section
114 of the Evidence Act, in relation to the entry in the Revenue Record or
papers held that by no stretch of imagination it can form basis for
declaration of title.
UNLESS THE TRANSFEREE ESTABLISHES THAT HE HAD TAKEN
REASONABLE CARE TO ASCERTAIN THE RIGHT OR TITLE OF THE
TRANSFEROR AND THE TRANSFEREE HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH,
THOUGH THE SALE DEEDS ARE FOR VALID CONSIDERATION IS
ITSELF HELD TO BE NOT SUFFICIENT TO VALIDATE SUCH
TRANSACTION
ILR 2003 Kar. 1774 [Mallappa Adiveppa Hadapad Vs. Smt. Rudrawwa and
Others]; wherein the revenue records stood in the name of the transferor
at the time when the transferee purchased the property and Court held
that unless the transferee establishes that he had taken reasonable care to
ascertain the right or title of the transferor and the transferee had acted
in good faith, though the Sale Deeds are for valid consideration is itself
held to be not sufficient to validate such transaction under Section 41 of
the Act. Mere varadi to change revenue entries does not confer valid title.
. It need not be said that a party cannot make out a new case
during trial or at any stage subsequent thereto if he/she has not pleaded
about it in her/his pleadings. It is not that the protection being claimed by
the 1st defendant under Section 41 of T.P. Act is purely a question of law,
not based on facts. In fact, a decision on the plea of protection under
Section 41 of T.P. Act depends on several questions of fact, each requiring
careful examination and as such, it cannot be said that unless such a plea
Sridhara babu. N
was taken in the pleading and put in issue between the parties, a party to
the proceedings can raise the plea covered by Section 41 of T.P. Act, for
the first time in appeal. .. the 1st defendant not specifically pleaded
that defendants No. 2 to 4 were the ostensible owners of the suit lands,
though pleaded that he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of
plaintiff's right, if any. It is not that Section 41 of the said Act comes to the
aid of a party without there being any pleading or a case set up by party
that the purchase was through an ostensible owner. If the sale is not by an
ostensible owner, the said provision of law does not come into
picture. It need not be said that transfer of an immoveable
property can be by way of registered document when the value of such
property is more than Rs. 100/-. It is not the case or evidence of 1st
defendant that when plaintiff gave "Varadi", as contended by him, the suit
lands were worth less than Rs. 100/- and as such, on account of such
consent "Varadi", they derived any title, much less, a valid title to the suit
lands.
Sridhara babu. N
. It need not be said that a party cannot make out a new case
during trial or at any stage subsequent thereto if he/she has not pleaded
about it in her/his pleadings. It is not that the protection being claimed by
the 1st defendant under Section 41 of T.P. Act is purely a question of law,
not based on facts. In fact, a decision on the plea of protection under
Section 41 of T.P. Act depends on several questions of fact, each requiring
careful examination and as such, it cannot be said that unless such a plea
was taken in the pleading and put in issue between the parties, a party to
the proceedings can raise the plea covered by Section 41 of T.P. Act, for
the first time in appeal. .. the 1st defendant not specifically pleaded
that defendants No. 2 to 4 were the ostensible owners of the suit lands,
though pleaded that he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of
plaintiff's right, if any. It is not that Section 41 of the said Act comes to the
aid of a party without there being any pleading or a case set up by party
that the purchase was through an ostensible owner. If the sale is not by an
ostensible owner, the said provision of law does not come into
picture. It need not be said that transfer of an immoveable
property can be by way of registered document when the value of such
property is more than Rs. 100/-. It is not the case or evidence of 1st
defendant that when plaintiff gave "Varadi", as contended by him, the suit
lands were worth less than Rs. 100/- and as such, on account of such
consent "Varadi", they derived any title, much less, a valid title to the suit
lands.
Sridhara babu. N
The Tahsildar has got power only to issue survivalship certificate and not
the legal heirship certificate. Basavanni Shankar Ammanagi VS Smt.
Keshavva And Ors case: 2002 (2) KarLJ 317A. ILR 2002 KAR 581 .
The Tahsildar has got power only to issue survivalship certificate and not
the legal heirship certificate. If the second respondent contends that she is
the class I heir of the deceased-Shivanand, she must get the order from
the competent Court to establish that she is the class I heir of the
deceased. Therefore, the impugned order passed by. the 5th respondent is
not sustainable in the eye of law. The order passed by the 4th respondent
holding that the appeal is not maintainable under the order passed by the
Tahsildar is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. The appeal filed
by the petitioner is maintainable and the order passed by the 5th
respondent is not maintainable. Hence, the Assistant-Commissioner has
committed an error in passing the impugned order declaring that the
appeal filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.
DECISION OF THE REVENUE COURT HAS TO BE NECESSARILY BASED
ON THE UNDISPUTED FACTS
Smt. Shivagangavva vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors. ILR 2007
KAR 4542 Every revenue officer who is authorized to hold an enquiry in
respect of disputed cases is a revenue Court. The very fact he is prohibited
from recording the statements and depositions of the parties makes it
clear that no substantial rights of the parties in respect of the disputed
property can be gone into by such revenue Court. If title or right set up by
one party to an immovable property is disputed by the other party such
title to the property cannot be enquired into by the revenue Courts much
less any decision be rendered for any purpose whatsoever. In the first
place the revenue Court constituted under the Act can only go into
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
in law. .. However, it does not mean that the authorities can give a go
by to the procedure contemplated in law even for the limited purpose of
changing the revenue entries. The Tahsildar while holding an enquiry in
terms of the provisions of the Rule, noticed several disputes, claims,
counter claims, even to the extent of identity of the very person, who had
executed the sale deed being not clear; that the very person who is said to
have executed the sale deed claiming that he had not executed the sale
deed in respect of the land in question was not his land that he had been
pressurized to execute the sale deed etc. it is only proper that the
parties should approach the Civil Court to get their rights determined and
there upon seek for necessary correction in the revenue entries. No
exception can be taken to an order of this nature.
KAT HAS NO POWER TO MAKE INTERIM ORDERS LIKE AN ORDER
APPOINTING A RECEIVER OR GRANTING AN INTERIM ORDER OF
INJUNCTION IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES IN DISPUTE DURING THE
PENDENCY OF AN APPEAL FILED UNDER THE KARNATAKA LAND
REVENUE ACT
Bench: K Bhimaiah, V Malimath, M R Jois, (Full Bench judgment) in
the case of Lingamma vs State Of Karnataka AIR 1982 Kant 18, ILR
1981 KAR 161, 1981 (2) KarLJ 177 "5..... An order appointing an interim
receiver cannot be regarded as absolutely essential for the discharge of
the appellant power. At best, it can be said that it is convenient to have
such a power. But as the Supreme Court has pointed out that the power
can be implied only if it is absolutely essential for the discharge of the
power conferred and not merely because it is convenient to have such a
power. So far as granting stay of order appealed against is concerned, the
same can be regarded as absolutely essential for the discharge of the
Sridhara babu. N
Booda Poojari vs Thomu Poojarthi ILR 1989 KAR 781 The significant
difference between Section 113(2) and (3) of the Act and Section 54 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act as extracted above is that in the Land
Revenue Act or Section 54 thereof there is no reference to either the Code
of Civil Procedure or to a Court of appeal exercising Appellate power
under the Code of Civil Procedure. In other words, Section 54 as held by
the Full Sench has to be understood to be exhaustive, in the matter of
conferment of power in itself and nothing could be implied or nothing
was left to be Implied by the legislature. Therefore, the learned Counsel
for the respondent contends that by implication the Appellate Authority
under the Act could not be clothed with the power of the Civil Court. That
would be begging the question. There is specific conferment of powers of
an Appellate Court under the Code of Civil Procedure on the Appellate
Authority by Section 113(2) and nothing is left to be implied. By reference
to provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, the provisions
contained therein are legislated into the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in
so far as the duties, functions and powers of the Appellate Authority are
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Cr.P.C. indicates that inherent powers have been taken and have been
declared to continue to vest only in the High Court but not in the
subordinate Criminal Courts.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act as well as 151 of C.P.C. and Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. firstly shows under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
concept of inherent powers with reference to Subordinate Courts is not
applicable. That Section 482 Cr.P.C. declares that inherent powers only of
the High Court will not be affected because of any other provisions in the
Cr.P.C. But that is not so with respect to Subordinate Courts either under
Code of Civil Procedure or Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964. While
under Section 151 of C.P.C., the inherent powers of the Civil Court and
under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the inherent powers
of the Revenue Court whether the Court of original jurisdiction or
appellate jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction have been maintained
and retained and they are entitled to pass suitable order in the
circumstances of the case or as they deem necessary for the purpose of
securing Justice and for the purpose of preventing the abuse of process of
the Court.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
the Tribunal has to follow the procedure laid down by Section 34 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act for holding enquires. It is further held that
the said provisions do not permit the Tribunal to dispose of the cases
merely on affidavits. It is as follows; "According to Rule 17 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the Tribunal has to follow the procedure
laid down by Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for holding
enquiries. Section 34 read with Sections 35 and 36 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act requires that the proceedings of the Tribunal should be held
in open and it does not permit the Tribunal to dispose of cases merely on
affidavits of parties in which case, the opposite party will have no
opportunity of contesting the evidence by cross-examination. No
following the above procedure is an illegality which vitiates the
proceedings."
In Byrappa and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1981 (2) Kar.L.J.1
a Division Bench of Court has held that having regard to the requirements
of Rule 17 of the Rules, the summary of the evidence in an inquiry before
the Tribunal should be recorded by its Chairman and this is mandatory.
Any breach of the requirement vitiates the proceeding before the
Tribunal.
In Seetharamaiah B.N. and Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Virajpet and
Ors., 1985 (1) Kar.L.J. 369, a Division Bench of Court has held that if the
Chairman of the Tribunal is not in a position to write down the deposition
of the parties and therefore, dictates the summary of the deposition either
to a member of the Tribunal or to a member of the staff of the Tribunal
who records the same accurately, any order passed on the basis of the
evidence so recorded shall not be interfered with by the High Court.
Sridhara babu. N
purposes.
Therefore,
the
question of
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
the view expressed by the learned Judge. But, we however add, if a land
fell within ODP or CDP prepared for Bangalore Metropolitan Planning
Area the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, ceases to have any
power under Section 95 of the Act, in view of the over-riding effect given
to the provisions of the Planning Act by Section 76M thereof over all other
laws which includes The Land Revenue Act. Section 76M was not brought
to the notice of the learned Judge. Whatever that may be, the fact remains
that the view taken by the learned Judge that any permission to be
accorded must be in conformity with the provisions of the Town Planning
Act and the ODP and CDP prepared thereunder, is correct and we entirely
agree with the view taken by the learned Judge.
Supreme
Court
in
the
case
of
State
of
Karnataka
Vs Shankar Textiles Mill Ltd ... AIR 1995 SC 234 has held that obtaining
permission to use the agricultural land for non agricultural purpose under
Section 95(2) of the Act is mandatory in view of the non abstante clause
introduced by way of an amendment.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT EXERCISE HIS POWER FOR
GRANT OF CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO NONAGRICULTURAL PURPOSE, IF THAT DIVERSION OF THE LANDS IS
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
conversion of lands. The petitioner has not stated that he has cultivated
the lands personally for three consecutive years. Hence she is liable to be
evicted from the lands by the Tahsildar under Section 60 of KLRF Act.
.. Conversion of lands in question must be examined by the
Deputy Commissioner keeping in view Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the
KLR Act which clearly spells out that the Deputy Commissioner shall not
exercise his power for grant of conversion of agricultural land into nonagricultural purpose, if that diversion of the lands is likely to defeat the
provisions of any law for the time being in force. The said provision of the
KLR Act will come in the way for the Deputy Commissioner to exercise his
power for granting conversion.
Sridhara babu. N
W/O
Narasayya
And
...
vs
The
Deputy
Commissioner ILR 2007 KAR 3814, 2008 (1) KarLJ 618 The revenue
authorities have no power to interfere or decide the civil rights between
the parties. .. Further it is specifically observed by the Assistant
Commissioner in the operative portion of the order that, it is common
knowledge that, the land revenue and other taxes in respect of the land
have to be paid by all the landholders every year and also as per the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, every year all the landholders are given free
RTC of the land and that, majority of the land owners are covered by seed
subsidy and crop insurance every year and lack of knowledge of five years
five months without any sufficient grounds appears unreasonable. The
said observation made by the said authority is just and proper and there
is no error or illegality as such committed by the said authority in
dismissing the appeal filed by petitioners. Assailing the correctness of the
said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, petitioners have filed
the revision petition before the first respondent under Section 136(3) of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The revisional authority, in turn after
giving sufficient opportunity to both parties and after critical evaluation
of the entire relevant material available on file including the order passed
by second respondent and fourth respondent, has recorded that, as per
Section 128 of the Act, public notice has been issued calling for objections
and no objections were received from any one including the revision
petitioners. Further, the said authority has rightly observed that, "when
Sridhara babu. N
the name of revision petitioner did not appear in the ROR at that time,
question of issuing individual notices did not arise. If at all the petitioners
have any right in the lands as against the respondent, they have to
establish before the Civil Court. So the revision is not maintainable." The
said reasoning given by the first respondent is just and proper and there
is no error as such committed by the said authority.
REVENUE AUTHORITY SHALL MAKE NECESSARY ENTRIES IN THE
REVENUE RECORDS AFTER ORDER IS PASSED BY THE COMPETENT
COURT
Appasab Babaji Dhabade Major, ... vs The Deputy Commissioner And
Ors 2006 (6) KarLJ 156 If any order is passed by the competent court
regarding the validity of the said will, the revenue authority shall make
necessary entries in the revenue records, in accordance with law
REVENUE AUTHORITIES DO NOT HAVE POWER OR JURISDICTION TO
PRONOUNCE UPON LEGAL RIGHTS OR LEGAL ENTITLEMENT OR
EVEN TO PRONOUNCE UPON THE VALIDITY OF A WILL OR A SALE
DEED
Smt. Papamma vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors. ILR 2005 KAR
5777, 2006 (4) KarLJ 330 Revenue authorities do not have power or
jurisdiction to pronounce upon legal rights or legal entitlement or even to
pronounce upon the validity of a Will or a sale deed and such power is
undoubtedly vested with the Civil Court. The Tahsildar had no
competence to say one way or the other on the validity of the sale deed
and to the extent the Tahsildar ventured upon to opine that the sale
transaction was one not tenable or proper is an adventure not permitted
Sridhara babu. N
Tankbed, Phut Kareb Kharab Halla, date reserve, burial grounds can only
be found in the revenue records. In fact, one finds it difficult even to locate
a Gunduthope or a Tankbed in the villages. The gomal lands and the
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
M.T. Krishnappa vs Erashetty, ILR 2006 KAR 2728, 2006 (5) KarLJ
226 It is the duty of the revenue authorities to see that the grants made
under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or under the Land Grant
Rules, 1969 are effectuated by the concerned authorities i.e., by proper
identification of the lands before and after grant without giving room for
any controversy. It is also necessary to preserve the remaining extent of
the Government land in tact and to see that the parties do not encroach
upon the remaining extent of Government land under the guise of grant
certificates.
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddaiah v. Hutchamma, 1982
(2) KLJ SN 28 it was held by this Court thus: "If the contention of the
respondent revenue authorities that alienation in favour of the appellants
were made in violation of the non-alienation clause of grant is correct,
when they ought to have resorted to the above Rule 9 of the Rules for
cancellation of the grant itself and only thereafter they could have
initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act for correction of the
revenue entries. But, without cancelling the grant, they could not have
Sridhara babu. N
WHEN ONCE LAND IS CONVERTED FROM AGRICULTURE TO NONAGRICULTURE SUCH STATUTORY ORDER REMAINS VALID STILL IT
IS CANCELLED THE REVENUE DOCUMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL
LAND LOOSES ITS SIGNIFICANCE ONCE LAND CONVERTED.
Sridhara babu. N
.. GOPALAPPA v.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the Tribunal has to follow the procedure
laid down by Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for holding
enquiries. Section 34 read with Sections 35 and 36 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act requires that the proceedings of the Tribunal should be held
in open and it does not permit the Tribunal to dispose of cases merely on
affidavits of parties in which case, the opposite party will have no
opportunity of contesting the evidence by cross-examination. No
following the above procedure is an illegality which vitiates the
proceedings."
In Byrappa and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1981 (2) Kar.L.J.1
a Division Bench Court has held that having regard to the requirements of
Rule 17 of the Rules, the summary of the evidence in an inquiry before the
Tribunal should be recorded by its Chairman and this is mandatory. Any
breach of the requirement vitiates the proceeding before the Tribunal.
Seetharamaiah B.N. and Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Virajpet and Ors.,
1985 (1) Kar.L.J. 369, a Division Bench of this Court has held that if the
Chairman of the Tribunal is not in a position to write down the deposition
of the parties and therefore, dictates the summary of the deposition either
to a member of the Tribunal or to a member of the staff of the Tribunal
who records the same accurately, any order passed on the basis of the
evidence so recorded shall not be interfered with by the High Court.
Sanna Karibasappa v. Mudegowdra Mahadevappa and Ors., 1978 (2)
Kar.L.J. 26 Court has held that maintaining the order sheet and recording
the final order in English, a language not understood by all the members
of the Tribunal is a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 17.
Sridhara babu. N
K. Somashekara Shetty vs Devaki And Ors. ILR 2005 KAR 3534, 2005
(5) KarLJ 248 . Provisions of CPC are not applicable to the Land
Tribunal. Therefore, adopting the procedure prescribed in the CPC as
amended by Act No. 22/2002 in the matter of examination-in-chief of the
witness by way of affidavit is contrary to mandatory procedure
prescribed in Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. The Tribunal is
required to record evidence as provided in Rule 17(5) of the Rules. It is
not permissible for the Tribunal to accept examination-in-chief by way of
affidavit. It is also not permissible to record evidence in a language
(English) not understood by all the members of the Tribunal because Rule
17(1) clearly states that the record of the proceedings shall be maintained
in a language understood by all its members.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the Competent Civil
Courts.
NEITHER THE TAHSILDAR NOR THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY HAVE
ANY
POWER
TO
CHARACTERIZE
THE
QUALITY
OF
THE
Sridhara babu. N
AIR 1996 Kant 143, ILR 1995 KAR 2483, 1995 (5) KarLJ
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
documents
on
the
ground
of
fraud,
undue
influence,
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
which shall contain a brief summary of the facts elicited during the
enquiry and the grounds for the decision. Of course an appeal is provided
against such decision to the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the SubDivision whose decision shall be final. Therefore, it becomes clear every
Revenue Officer who is authorised to hold an enquiry in respect of
disputed cases is a Revenue Court. The very fact that he is prohibited from
recording the statements and depositions of the parties makes it clear
that no substantial rights of the parties in respect of the disputed
property can be gone into by such Revenue Court. If title or right set up by
one party to an immovable property is disputed by the other party such
title to the property cannot be enquired into by the Revenue Courts much
less any decision be rendered for any purpose whatsoever. In the first
place the Revenue Court constituted under the Act can only go into
questions of assessment, recovery of land revenue and land revenue
administration and it has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title in
respect of an immovable property which exclusively vests in the Civil
Court.
Sridhara babu. N
the competent court regarding the validity of the said will, the revenue
authority shall make necessary entries in the revenue records, in
accordance with law.
Sridhara babu. N
MR.JUSTICE
K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE
HON'BLE
Sridhara babu. N
Nagpur High Court in the case of T. RAJLU NEEDY v. M.E.R. MALAR, AIR
1930 Nagpur 197 also took the same view that - "In the case of a
discrepancy the dimensions and boundaries and the area specified within
the boundaries will pass whether it be less or more than the quantity
specified."
ILR 1988 KAR 554 in the case of Narasimha Shastry vs Mangesha Devaru,
Court has ruled that where the sale deed mentioned the boundaries
specifically and clearly to identify the property, the actual extent of the
land not being clear, the recitals as to boundaries should prevail.
KUMAR RAMESHAR MALLA v. RAM TARAK HAZRA 1. 14 Calcutta Weekly
Notes 268 which lays down that when the boundaries of a land can be
ascertained with perfect certainty that an intention to convey all lands
comprised within those boundaries can be inferred; and if the boundaries
are uncertain the intention should be taken to be to convey the specified
quantity of land within those boundaries and in that case with reference
to the facts it was held that the intention was to pass the specified
quantity of land only and description of the property by boundaries was
discarded.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA of HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA, In the case of Narayan vs Shridhar Decided on 3
April, 2014 (RSA NO.5663 OF 2010) held that The undisputed fact is
that the total extent of Sy.No.77/2 was 4 acres 20 gunta inclusive of 5
gunta kharab land. Out of the said property, plaintiff's father-in-law sold 2
acre 23 guntas in favour of the father of the defendant as per Ex.P21. 20
guntas of land already with the defendant. Therefore, the remaining
Sridhara babu. N