1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8884 OF 2008 (KVOA) BETWEEN SRI G VIRUPAKASHASWAMY S/O LATE T S GURUNANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO 142B/14, 25TH CROSS 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-10... PETITIONER (By Sri. O SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE 2. SMT MUNI MARAMMA W/O LATE VENKATRAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT VIBHUTHIPURA VARTHUR HOBLI 3. SMT VENKATESHAMMA D/O LATE KATAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT RAYASANDRA, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST BANGALORE 4. SRI CHINNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATRAMANAPPA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT VIBHUTHIPURA
2 VARTHUR HOBLI 5. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE VENKATRAMANAPPA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT VIBHUTHIPURA VARTHUR HOBLI 6. SRI YELLAPPA S/O LATE VENKATRAMANAPPA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT VIBHUTHIPURA VARTHUR HOBLI 7. SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE VENKATRAMANAPPA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT VIBHUTHIPURA VARTHUR HOBLI 8. SRI M VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATRAMAIAH HINDU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO 140, ARASAPPA LAYOUT KRISHNAIAHNAPALYA BEHIND KGEF, BANGALORE-38 9. M R RAVIKUMAR S/O. M MUNIRAJU AGE 36 YEARS RESIDING AT No. 19/3 NEW BINNAMANGALA OLD MADRAS ROAD INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE 560 038. 10. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 1.... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. SUNIL S, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 7 N BAYYA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 GOPAL BILAL MANI, HCGP FOR R1 & R10)
3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT DT. 25.2.2008 PASSED IN MA..NO. 12/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT STAY THE OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 25.2.2008 PASSED IN M.A.NO. 12/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The apathy of the State govt. is writ large. There is absolutely no synergy to assist the court by producing records in respect of the land in Sy.No.116 of K.G.Binnamangala which, according to the learned counsel measures about 6 acres 12 guntas from out of which 20 guntas is in question. While petitioner claims to have been registered as a permanent tenant under Section 5 of the Personal and Miscellaneous Inam Abolition Act, 1964, for short Act, Respondent No.9 too claims to be a person registered as a permanent tenant under the very same Act, in respect of 30 guntas of land. The Isolation hospital authorities submit that 6 acre 12 guntas of land was acquired for the hospital.
4 Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7 submits that 23 guntas of land in sy.no.116 was re-granted under the Karnataka Village Office Abolition Act, 1961. 2. The first question as to whether the land in Sy.No.116 was attached to a village office of Thoti, a minor inam, was required to be considered by the Tahsildar based upon relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the said fact and not on a cursory reading of records or statements of revenue authorities recorded during the year 1995; The second question required the Tahsildar to have addressed himself over whether 20 guntas of land from out of 6 acres 12 guntas in sy.no.116 was in fact subject matter of proceeding culminating in an order dated 26.8.1964 in INA/PR/121(A)/63-64 Annexure-D registering the petitioner as a permanent tenant under section 5 of the Act by or whether the 9th respondent was registered as an occupant of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.116 under
5 Section 5 of the Act, by order dt. 6.3.1960 of the Special Tahsildar for inams Abolition in W.P.4869/2008 DD 5.2.2010. The third question required the Tahsildar, to have ascertained as to whether the entire extent of 6 acre 12 guntas was in fact acquired by the State for and on behalf of the Isolation hospital, or any other acquisition in respect of the said land. 3. A bare perusal of the order of the Tahsildar dated 19.11.2004 in HOA.CR.1/2004-05 Annexure-V4 does not disclose application of mind to the aforesaid relevant questions of fact, except for conclusions. 4. So also the order dated 25.2.2008 Annexure-A in MA.12/2005 of the 6th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore city, CCH-11 without noticing as to whether the Tahsildar had in fact marshaled evidence in the enquiry over the lands in question were attached to the Thoti inam under the Inam Abolition Act also fell in error in confirming the order of the Tahsildar. Very
6 strangely at paragraph 28 of the order of the District Judge, though reference is made to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Barawardar register was not produced, brushes aside the said submission stating that the appellant did not produce the sale deed, conversion order and re-grant order. In other words the procedure followed by the District Judge in not answering the question as to whether the lands were attached to Thoti inam and were in fact recorded in the Barawardar register, has brushed aside the answer to the said question on irrelevant considerations. The irrational approach of the District Judge is patent from the findings. Suffice it to state that the District Judge as well as the Tahsildar by recording findings in the absence of relevant material have occasioned grave injustice to the petitioner. 5. A perusal of the order sheet maintained in this petition discloses that the efforts were made to implead
7 the State as a party to secure the records from the revenue department, yet again in the direction of answering the questions noticed supra. Records though made available on 20.1.2010 along with a list, on perusal, does not disclose relevant records to answer the aforesaid questions. In my opinion, the Tahsildar surmised and drew conclusions based upon no records. That was followed by the District Judge who too did not examine the grounds of appeal to ascertain the lesser of the truth. 6. The State Government in the memo dated 2.7.2010 filed an affidavit of one B.Shivaswamy, s/o Beeregowda, the Tahsildar enclosing a memo dated 2.7.2010 filed by the State Government in W.P.8884/2008 c/w W.P.4869/2008 Annexure-R1 and a map prepared by the First Division surveyor attached to the Tahsildar s office. File further discloses that a memo dated 26.2.2010 is filed enclosing copies of
8 certain orders and proceedings, the details of which are set out in the memo from pages 1 to 40 throwing light upon the extent of land acquired for New Isolation hospital, as also in respect of lands in Sy.No.117, 118 and 119 belonging to P.Subraya Mudaliar and M/s Daveson and Company, the Khayam guttedar being the superior holders. In addition reference is made to huts on the land put up by thoti Guruva, Muniyelllappa and Rama. In addition at page 32 records the statements showing compensation awarded by the collector to all persons interested for the plot of land situated in Binnamangala in the civil and military station, Bangalore specifically pointing out to 1.65 acres in Sy.No.116 belonging to Thoti of Khayam gutta Binnamangala (service inam) and the award amount as Rs.750/- as on 9.10.1927. Thoti Guruva, Muniyellappa and Rama are said to have received compensation in respect of land in Sy.No.116.
9 7. It is yet another instance which would point out to the fact that the Tahsildar did not apply his mind by securing necessary records relating to the land in question. In the light of Rule 3 of the KVO Rules 1961, the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, is illegal and unsustainable. 8. Since the Food and Health Department of the State Government is party respondent No.10 in this proceeding, the said respondent is directed to be impleaded as party respondent before the Tahsildar to enable the said respondent to place all relevant material including that which was placed before this Court, supra, and in addition such documents as may be necessary for resolution of the dispute. The Defense Department of the Union of India as well as National Highways Authority are also directed to be impleaded as party respondents before the Tahsildar for adjudication of the claims of the parties. By order dated 21.8.2009
10 this Court directed the Registrar General to hold a preliminary enquiry and submit a preliminary report over the allegation that the signature of the Tahsildar on Annexure-V3 order dated 17.11.2004 in HOA.CR- 1/2004-05 was forged. Registrar General after holding an enquiry and marking as Ex.P1, the order, subject matter of allegation of forgery Annexure-V3 and Ex.P2 the order of the Tahsildar Annexure-V4 dated 19.11.2004 in HOA.CR.1/04-05, and on perusal of the files observed that the original of Ex.P1 order containing the alleged forged signature of the Tahsildar was not forthcoming from the records nor did the petitioner place the original at the time of enquiry, submitted a report dated 21.9.2009. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the original of Annexure-V3 (Ex.P1 in the enquiry) is not available since lost or misplaced on account of death of the agreement holder who was in possession of the said order. In the absence of the original order Annexure-V3 and regard being had
11 to the report of the Registrar General coupled with the fact the Tahsildar who is alleged to have signed Ex.P1 order having filed an affidavit stating that he has not affixed his signature to the order Ex.P1, it is needless to state that the said order is consequential for decision making over the dispute brought before court. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order dated 25.2.2008 in M.A.12/05 Annexure-A and the order Annexure-V4 are quashed. Proceeding remitted to the Tahsildar for consideration afresh after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and to pass an order recording reasons, findings and conclusions by answering the questions noticed supra. ln Sd/- JUDGE