Judgment:
ORDER
A.S. Bopanna, J.
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the allowing reliefs:
a) issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writs end to quash the impugned order dt.31-03-1997 passed by the 3rd Respondent authority in case No. LRF(83) 1003/1990-91, as per Annexure-'Y' and M.R. No. 75/07-08, dt.08-06-2008 passed by the 4th Respondent Tahasildar as per 2007-08 RRT dt.28-10-2008 Annexure-W & X, Memo dated 08-09-2008 in No. RRT.CR 287/2008-09 issued by the 3rd Respondent as per Annexure-'XE' endorsement dt.30-09-2008 in No. RRT(BH)CR 136/2008-09, issued by the 4th Respondent as per Anexure-'AF' and further declare that, revenue entries made in the name of the Government to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas out of 4 Acres 36 Guntas in Sy. No. 56 of Singasandra Village by removing the name of the petitioner without initiating any proceedings and without passing orders thereon are illegal & void. And all further proceedings that are totally contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice.
b) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing 4th Respondent to restore M.R. No. 2/2001-02 standing in the name of the petitioner to the extent of 1 Acre 30 Guntas in Sy. No. 56 of Singasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk.
2. The of the petitioner is that he is entitled to an extent of 4 acres 36 guntas in Sy. No. 56 of Singasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk. In this regard, the grievance is with regard to the reduction of the extent in the revenue entries by reversing the entries which existed in the name of the petitioner. It is contended that as against the entitlement to the extent of 4 acres 36 guntas, the same has been reduced by 1 acre 30 guntas and therefore, the petitioner claims restoration of the same. In this regard, it is contended that with regard to the earlier proceedings of restoration of the land to the original grantees for violation of PTCL Act, the proceedings indicated that an extent of 4 acres 36 was restored. Subsequently, the petitioner contends that he has purchased the property under the Sale Deed dated 11.10.2001, which is as per Annexure-'P', under which the extent of 4 acres 36 guntas has been conveyed. In this regard, it is also contended that prior to the said sale, an appropriate permission had been obtained as per Annexure-IJ' and thereafter the purchase has been made.
3. Pursuant thereto, the mutation entry in M.R.No.2/01-02 is also said to have been made. However, on noticing the reduction of the extent, the petitioner was before the Tahsildar seeking for rectification of the entry by indicating the entire extent of 4 acres 36 guntas to which the petitioner claims to be entitled. In this regard, the Tahsildar considered the records and also the case put forth by the petitioner and submitted a report to the Assistant Commissioner on 13.08.2008 indicating that the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas indicated as Government land is not a part of the land measuring 4 acres 3C guntas to which the petitioner is laying claim and therefore, had recommended that the correction should be made in favour of the petitioner to indicate the total extent of 4 acres 36 guntas. The said proposal was considered by the Assistant Commissioner and by a memorandum dated 08.09.2008 addressed to the Tahsildar the proposal was rejected. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar has issued an endorsement dated 30.09.2008. The said proceedings are at Annexures 'AD', 'AE' and 'AF'. The petitioner therefore claims to be aggrieved by the memorandum dated 08.09.2008 issued by the Assistant Commissioner and the consequent endorsement issued by the Tahsildar.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the sale deed and the documents to indicate the right of the vendors of the petitioner, would contend that all the said documents indicate the extent as 4 acres 36 guntas and even the mutation had been effected. The reversal of the mutation itself is without notice Lo the petitioner and in any event, while reducing the extent, the petitioner was entitled to be heard so that the petitioner could have put forth the appropriate documents to secure right to the entire extent of 4 acres 36 guntas. In this regard, specific reference is made to Annexure 'AD' namely, the report submitted by the Tahsildar to the Assistant Commissioner to contend that the Tahsildar in fact has taken note of all these aspects of the matter and has held that they are entitled to rectification and such a proposal has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner even without hearing the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate however sought to justify the order. It is contended that even though the memorandum dated 08.09.2008 does not indicate detailed reasons, the Assistant Commissioner has pointed out that 1 acre 30 guntas had been forfeited to the Government and the said extent cannot be considered as the land belonging to the petitioner. It is contended that the manner of proposal put up by the Tahsildar was not appropriate and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner on looking into the documents, was of the view that such proposal cannot be accepted and has been returned without approval and therefore, the Tahsildar was also justified in issuing the endorsement dated 30.09.2008 which was based on the direction issued by the Assistant Commissions.
6. In the light of what has been contended, even though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to the Armexures in the writ petition to indicate that by an earlier order in FTCL proceedings, the order was made to the extent of 4 acres 36 guntas and also a direction was issued to pay the penalty for the said amount and thereafter, the sale deed was executed and the mutation was effected and further contrary to the same, though the learned Government Advocate has contended that the petitioner has no right to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas, I am of the view that these aspects need not be considered in detail at this juncture. The reason being that at the outset, the memorandum by which the proposal of the Tahsildar has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner does not indicate detailed reference to these aspects of the matter and any reference at this point would only amount to putting the cart before the horse, since a finding of fact would have to be first rendered by the authorities based on the said documents.
7. Keeping this to view, a perusal of the document at Annexure 'AD' would indicate that the Tahsidar while putting forth the proposal dated 13.08.2008 has referred to the right as claimed by the petitioner to the extent of 4 acres 36 guntas and the manner of rectification which has been sought. On referring to the same, a proposal has been put forth to the Assistant Commissioner Indicating that the claim of the petitioner can be accepted. It would have to be stated at the outset, that ii was also open for the Tahsildar to pass an order and any of the aggrieved parties could have carried it in appeal. However, in any event, the Tahsildar has put forth the proposal to the Assistant Commissioner. In a matter of this nature, where the Tahsildar had accepted the case put forth by the petitioner and had put forth the proposal, and when the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the same, at least an opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the petitioner. A perusal of the memorandum dated 08.09.2008 does not indicate either that the petitioner has been heard or there is any reference to the documents by the Assistant Commissioner to indicate that the proposal put forth by the Tahsildar is not justified. Instead, all that has been stated is that an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas had been forfeited to the Government and therefore, the said extent cannot be included. It is based on that, the Tahsildar has issued the endorsement. Since the said order has been passed and the endorsement has been issued without hearing the petitioner, on the face of it, the same cannot be sustained and accordingly, the memorandum at Annexure 'AE' and the endorsement at Annexure 'AF' stand quashed. The third respondent-Assistant Commissioner is directed to restore the proceedings in R.R.T.CM:287/08-09 on file, issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and thereafter consider the case put forth by the petitioner in the light of the recommendations made by the Tahsildar on 13.08.2008. On hearing the petitioner, appropriate orders in accordance with law shall be passed by the third respondent. Since the said proceedings relate to the appropriate mutation and revenue entries to be recorded with regard to the extent of the land, it is needless to mention that until the proceedings is completed, the extent of actual physical possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.