LAND GRANT BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CANNOT BE CANCELLED BY TAHSILDAR IN THE NAME OF RECTIFYING MUTATION/RTC ENTRY

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.


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.