Suo Moto Proceedings U/s. 136(3) Of Karnataka Land Revenue Act Can't Be Initiated Or Names Deleted From Land Records Without Overturning Original Order Under Mysore Inams Abolition Act: High Court
|The Karnataka High Court held that the Special Deputy Commissioner couldn't initiate suo moto proceedings or delete names from land records under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 without overturning the original order under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954.
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner initiating proceedings to cancel the grant based on the land's classification as 'Nala.'
The Court noted that such orders must be contested promptly even without a time limit. The Special Deputy Commissioner sought to delete names from land records because the petitioners failed to provide certified copies of orders.
“This Court is of the considered opinion that the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have initiated the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act, 1964, and he could not have directed the deletion of the names of the grantees or the subsequent purchasers from the land records, without getting the original order passed under the Act, 1954, set aside in manner known to law”, the Bench of Justice R Devdas observed.
Senior Advocate K. Suman appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Advocate General V. G. Bhanuprakash appeared for the State.
The first petitioner, along with her husband, initiated a second round of litigation contesting an order issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner concerning land purchased by Krishanaiah Shetty in 1968. The land sought for regrant under the Act, was eventually sold to Gopal Das H. Wadhwa and subsequently to Alle Gowda the first petitioner. Despite efforts by subsequent purchasers to participate, proceedings were initiated to cancel the grant based on the land's classification as 'Nala.'
In previous litigation, the Court found insufficient evidence to conclusively establish the land's grant to Shetty, deeming the matter requiring further examination by a civil court. The writ petition was dismissed, and subsequent appeals and a review petition were unsuccessful.
Regarding the State's contention that the Tahsildar rightfully notified the Special Deputy Commissioner about the land's 'nala' classification, the Court held that if the authorities believed the land couldn't be granted due to this classification, they should have legally contested the order of regrant by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (Act). Failing to do so meant the Special Deputy Commissioner lacked authority to use Section 136(3) of the Act, 1964, to remove names from the land records.
The Court observed that the Special Deputy Commissioner lacked authority to initiate proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act, 1964, without first overturning the original order passed under the Act, through proper legal channels. It referred to cases where setting aside orders must be done within a reasonable timeframe, supported by Supreme Court judgments. In this case, the sole reason for deleting names from the land records was the absence of certified copies of orders provided by the petitioners.
Furthermore, the Court held that the Special Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority to use suo motu powers to nullify revenue entries in favour of the original grantee and subsequent purchasers.
The petitioners were allowed to file applications to have their names entered in the land records based on sale deeds, to be reviewed by the Tahsildar for inclusion as per registered sale deeds.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner.
Cause Title: Nagarathnamma S v State Of Karnataka (2024:KHC:4237)
Appearance:
Petitioner(s): Senior Advocate K. Suman and Advocate Jayanth V.
Respondent(s): Additional Advocate General V. G. Bhanuprakash and Government Pleader Seshu. V.