(This Writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 3.1.2007 passed by R1 on his appeal prakarana No.22/2004-05 vide Annex V.)
1. Petitioners, questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 3rd January 2007 in proceedings Appeal Prakarana No.22/2004-05 on the file of the first respondent vide Annexure V, have presented the instant writ petition.
2. The Grievance of petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, an extent of 6.55 acres of land in Sy.No.63/A/3 situate at Boodguppa Village, Siruguppa Taluk, Bellary District was being cultivated by the grandfather of these petitioners late Sri. Fakirappa and thereafter, the same was being continued by the father of petitioners late Sri. Basanna, after the death of the grandfather late Fakirappa. After the death of the grandfather of petitioners, deceased Sri. Basanna i.e, the father of petitioners herein has succeeded the property in question and thereafter, he has filed the application for grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act (Ryotwari patta). The said application filed by deceased Basanna is alleged to have been considered by the competent authority and the Tahsildar has passed the order dated 30th March 1988 bearing No. LRM.14/86-87 vide Annexure G stating that, the applicant Sri. Basanna is absent and after verifying the RTC extract, the name of deceased Basanna is found and the same is to be continued in patta column. When things stood thus, the further case of petitioner is that, Form No.II has been issued under the provisions of Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 granting the said land in favour of late Sri. Basanna on 29th May 2002 bearing No.Revenue/Inam/14/86-87 vide Annexure H. After the death of the father of petitioners late Sri. Basanna, petitioners herein have submitted the application dated 15th May 2004 vide Annexure L before the third respondent- Tahsildar, Siruguppa Taluk and the Tahsildar, Siruguppa instead of recording the names of these petitioners in the relevant ETC extract and other revenue records, has, in turn, after considering the request made by these petitioners, issued the endorsement dated 1st July 2004 vide Annexure M, rejecting the request of these petitioners. Assailing the correctness of the said endorsement issued by the third respondent, petitioners herein have filed the appeal before the second respondent- Assistant Commissioner, Bellary Sub Division, Bellary. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the second respondent on 24th June 2006 in proceedings No.Revenue/Appeal/22-2004-05 vide Annexure T. The 2nd Respondent setting aside the endorsement issued by third respondent and directed the third respondent to issue notice to the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the second respondent dated 24th June 2006 vide Annexure T, petitioners herein have filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary the first respondent herein in Appeal Prakarana No.22/2004-05. The first respondent in turn, after hearing the petitioners and other parties to the proceedings and after careful perusal of the entire material available on record, threadbare, by assigning cogent reasons, has dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners and set aside the order dated 17th June 2004 passed by Tahsildar, Siruguppa and also the order dated 30th August 1988 bearing No.Inam/14/86-87 including Form No.II issued dated 29th May 2002 and remanded the matter back to third respondent to reconsider the same and pass appropriate orders.
3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri. Gode Nagaraj for considerable length of time.
4. After careful evaluation of the entire material available on record threadbare, including the order passed by the first respondent vide Annexure V, it is manifest on the face of the said order that, the Deputy Commissioner has not committed any error or illegality and material irregularity. Further, petitioners have also not made any good grounds to interfere in the well considered order passed by first respondent. It is significant to note that, these petitioners are claiming their rights on the basis of the alleged order passed by the Tahsildar dated 30th March 1988 vide Annexure G. After careful reading of the said order dated 30th March 1988, it emerges that, the same has been passed in one line without conducting proper enquiry and without reference to the relevant provisions of the Certain Inams Abolition Act, simply stating that, the name of the applicant is found in the RTC Extract and hence, his name has to be recorded in the patta. Thereafter, after nearly fourteen years, Form No.II has been issued by the Office of Tahsildar, Siruguppa on 29th May 2002 vide Annexure H. From the said Form No.II, it reveals that, the Grant Certificate is issued against the dead person, viz, late Sri. Basanna, the father of these petitioners who died in the year 1993 itself, as submitted by learned counsel for petitioners. The said alleged certificate issued is not legal or valid is a nullity in the eye of law for the simple reason that the same has been issued during 2002 after the death of deceased Sri. Basanna, father of these petitioners in the year 1993. Be that as it may.
5. As submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioners, petitioners father late Sri. Basanna died in the year 1993 itself. These petitioners have kept silent for about eleven years and have not redressed their grievances before any forum. It can be seen that, petitioners have filed the application on 15th May 2004 vide Annexure L before the third respondent claiming that, they are the legal heirs of deceased Basanna and requested the competent authority to register their names in the relevant record of rights and other relevant revenue records as per Ryotwari patta. The said request made by petitioners in the said application has been considered and rejected by third respondent by issuing the endorsement dated 1st July 2004 vide Annexure M. Assailing the correctness of the said endorsement issued by third respondent, petitioners herein have field the appeal before the second respondent. The Second respondent without conducting proper enquiry and without compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, has passed the non speaking order, setting aside the endorsement issued by third respondent and directed to issue notice to interested parties and to take appropriate decision in the matter. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by second respondent vide Annexure T, petitioners herein have filed the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary the first respondent herein in Appeal Prakarana No.22/2004-05. The Deputy Commissioner in turn, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file has observed in his order that, out of total extent of 6.55 acres, petitioners father late Sri.Basanna has sold 4.7 acres of land in favour of one Sri. Ramanna on 10th July 1969 itself and subsequently, these petitioners have purchased an extent of 1.85 acres from one Sri. Marali Ramanna on 30th September 1974 and therefore, the extent of land remaining with these petitioners out of the total extent was only 3.70 acres. Thereafter, petitioners 1 and 2 have sold an extent of 0.89 acres in favour of one Thimmappa, S/o. Bullappa and an extent of 0.75 acres in favour of Eranna, S/o. Gadeppa and mutation has also been certified in Nos.695/80-81 in the name of one Thimmappa, S/o. Bullappa and No.406/77-78 in favour of Eranna, S/o. Gadeppa and the land left out of the total extent with the petitioners herein is only 2.06 acres. However, petitioners herein, by colluding with the officials of the Revenue Department, without reference to these transactions, have some how taken Form No.II, that too, against the dead person, viz. late Sri. Basanna, who is non other than the father of petitioners herein, who died in the year 1993 itself. The said Form No.II issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Siruguppa is one without jurisdiction. Therefore, taking into consideration all these vital documentary evidence available on file and referring and recording the transactions entered into between the parties including petitioners between 1969 and 2004, and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the first respondent by assigning cogent reasons held that, Form No.II issued by competent authority is against the dead person and the same is contrary to the relevant Rules and that, the said Form No.II issued by the Deputy Tahsildar is one without jurisdiction. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, the first respondent has rightly opined that, the matter requires reconsideration afresh by third respondent and further also specifically pointed out that, out of the total extent of 6.55 acres of land, the remaining extent of land is only 2.06 acres and further the question as to whether petitioners herein are entitled for registration of occupancy rights under the Ryotwari patta is required to be answered. The valid and cogent reasons given by the Deputy Commissioner in remanding the matter for reconsideration to third respondent afresh, is just, fair and reasonable and therefore, I do not find any error or illegality as such in the impugned order passed by first respondent nor petitioners have made out any good grounds nor produced clinching documentary evidence to entertain the instant writ petition.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of.