ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS

K. Pasala Reddy @ A.K. Pasalappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka ... on 28 September, 2007 The authorities are duty bound to effect the mutation based on 'Certificate of Grant' within the reasonable period from the date of grant and even otherwise the grantees are also at liberty to approach the authorities for expediting such an action and normally no grantee will keep quiet without getting his name mutated in the revenue records for so long. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he has not produced in certified copy of the original documents in respect of the land in question. Therefore, the second respondent has opined that, the claim of petitioner is bereft of reasoning and the entries so made are with an ulterior motive of making a 'wrongful gain' of the suit land belonging to Government. Therefore, having no other alternative, the said authority has directed the Tahsildar, Bangalroe South Taluk to round off all the related entries concerning the suit land made in the revenue records such as IL, RR, RTC and all other allied registers/records as they are all based on created, bogus and concocted entries, It is further significant to note that, when this matter was pending adjudication before this Court since 2005, after nearly expiry of four years also, petitioner has not chosen to produce at least before this Court, any piece of authenticated document or certified copy of the land grant made in favour of the petitioner except placing reliance on the stand taken before the second respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner, When the entries are not supported with any land grant order or any authenticated document as such produced by petitioner, the second respondent has rightly passed the impugned order, after conducting thorough enquiry and discussing elaborately, by recording valid and cogent reasons Hence, in view of the well considered order passed by the second respondent, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, interference by this Court, in the impugned order is uncalled for.



DUTY TO ACT FAIRLY

Thomas D' Castelino vs Special Deputy Commissioner ILR 1988 KAR 2936 The law is well settled that every administrative act in the discharge of statutory functions, is treated as judicial if it adversely affects the rights of a citizen or entails a penalty or causes a deprivation. Hence there is a duty to act judicially when property right is at stake, and this duty is a postulate of a system of fair administrative procedure.

LAND CONVERSION - WHEN CONVERSION OF LAND IS NOT REQUIRED - TENANCY AND CONVERSION

The State Government Employees' ... vs The Hubli-Dharwad Urban ILR 1999 KAR 1797, 1999 (3) KarLJ 286 Therefore, once the land is declared as a vacant land, it ceased to be an agricultural land. Once the land is ceased to be agricultural land by application of process of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the land is no more agriculture. Once the land is not an agricultural land, the question of getting the land converted from agriculture to non-agriculture as provided under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, does not arise. A similar question arose in Civil Appeal No. 6079 of 1997 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that once the land is treated as a vacant land and exemption is granted, there is no requirement of obtaining permission under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

1969 (2) Mys.L.J. 184 - Smt. Puttamma and Ors. v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and Anr. wherein it was held as under: To contend that the conversion of the land could be done only if the landlord was in possession of the same; the land in possession of a tenant could be converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose by the landlord if the tenant did not opposes such application. Their lordships held in under: Section 95(2) does not authorise the Deputy Commissioner to accord permission for conversion without reference to the inability on the part of the applicant for conversion, to make the conversion he proposes to make, by reason of his not being in possession of the land. If, a tenant or a sub-tenant is in possession and the landlord cannot secure possession except after the eviction of the tenant or the sub-tenant, the proper stage at which an application for conversion could be made is normally the stage when the landlord secures possession from the tenant or the sub-tenant as the case may be.


1978 (1) KLJ 208 - Narasimha Setty K.G. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. wherein it is observed as under: Under Section 44 of the Act lands which fall within the definition in Section 2(18) alone stand transferred to and vest in the Government, Lands which ceased to be agricultural lands by order of alienation passed by the Assistant Commissioner are not agricultural lands within Section 2(18) and the Land Tribunal has so jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 48A and grant occupancy rights in respect of such lands. Failure on the part of the Tribunal to raise the legal presumption under Section 133 Land Revenue Act from the entry in the record of rights vitiates its order.


1983 (2) KLJ 148 - Gopalappa v. Gurushankariah and Ors. was relied upon wherein it was observed as under in paragraphs 9 & 11: As the law stands in the State, the holder of an agricultural land, if he intends using the same for any non-agricultural purpose, should get that land converted for a non-agricultural purpose under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Land Revenue Act). The land in question has been converted long prior to March 1, 1974 as a non-agricultural land. The learned Judge has found, from the material available, that a few houses had also been built on the land after the land was converted. In this connection the observation made by him at paragraph 5 of the order is as follows: In the instant case Exs.B and F are the endorsements given by the Tahsildar about the grant of alienation. According to the endorsement Ex. F the petitioner had paid the conversion fine before 21-11-72. He got the khatha changed into his name. He applied and got licence for construction of houses and that in fact he had constructed four houses. The material on record clearly establish that the land in question was a converted land. ..... The two enactments, namely, the Land Reforms Act and the Land Revenue Act are distinct and different. Permission to convert an agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose has to be obtained from the prescribed authority under the Land Revenue Act. A person aggrieved by grant of such permission has to challenge the same before the appropriate authorities prescribed thereunder. He cannot bypass that remedy and get that order invalidated before the Land Tribunal constituted under the Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal has no power to go behind the statutory order according permission to convert the land for non-agricultural purpose under the Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the finding of the learned Judge that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim of the appellant and the provisions of the Act were not attracted to the land in question is correct and calls for no interference. Therefore, the appeal is rejected.


In 2003 (5) Kar.L.J. 13 - Madhav Bandopant Kulkarni and Anr. v. The Land Tribunal, Belgaum and Ors. it is observed as under: The document conclusively establishes that as for as this 15 guntas of land is concerned, that by order dated 31-10-1963, non-agricultural permission was granted; this was a good ten years prior to the amendment of the Land Reforms Act. It is a condition precedent under the Land Reforms Act that the land in question must be agricultural land and then alone that the Tribunal assumes jurisdiction to grant occupancy right.... Since the learned Single Judge was in error in having directed the remand, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. The earlier part of the order setting aside the Tribunal's order granting occupancy rights is upheld. It necessarily follows by implication that the Form 7 stands rejected. (paras 3 and 7) ............. The revenue authorities are the deciding authorities in matters of granting non-agricultural permission and if the authorities were satisfied and they did accord conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural, then, on and from the date of the order, the lands change complexion. The existence of a few mango trees would not be sufficient to change the nature and character of the land." (para 6)


C. Hanumanthappa S/O. Chinnappa vs State Of Karnataka 2007 (4) KarLJ 394 when once the order of alienation passed by the competent authority under Land Revenue Act comes into existence, the land ceases to be agricultural one for the purpose of Section 2(18) of the Land Reforms Act. In such an event, the land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 48-A to grant occupancy rights in respect of such land. No doubt the entries in the record of rights raises legal presumption under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act but this is a rebuttal presumption and as already stated the tenant was successful in establishing that as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior to the said date, he was cultivating the said lands as a tenant.


C. Hanumanthappa S/O. Chinnappa vs State Of Karnataka 2007 (4) KarLJ 394 The criteria for granting occupancy rights is occupation of the land by the tenant as on 1.3.1974. In the present case apparently even according to the so called tenant he came into possession of this land only from 1970 onwards. In the year 1968 itself Mr. Marulaiah the auction purchaser cum-owner of the land in question got 7 acres of land converted to non-agricultural purpose. ......... Apparently, the application for occupancy rights came to be filed somewhere in 1979 (extended period) much after coming into force the amended Land Reforms Act of 1974. The amendment to the definition of agriculture at Section 2-A (1) includes dairy farming and poultry farming as well. By virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 91, though proceedings commenced under principal Act, if they were pending as on the date of coining into force of the amended Act, the provisions of principal Act as amended by 1974 Act shall be applicable to such proceedings. ............. Apparently, the land was converted much prior to the amendment of the Land Reforms Act in 1974. The criteria in the present case would be whether the land in question was an agricultural land or not as on the date of application for grant of occupancy rights. A plain reading of definition of agriculture under amended Act of 1974, both dairy farming and poultry farming are classified as agriculture. When the order of conversion is perused in detail, it is noticed the order of conversion obtained by erstwhile owner Marulaiah was also for the purpose of agriculture industries apart from dairy farming and poultry farming. Definitely, agriculture industries does not fall within the ambit of definition of agriculture under Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1974. The order of conversion does not indicate bifurcation of 7 acres of land for the said three uses, i.e. agriculture industry, poultry farming and dairy farming. This would only mean there was no specification or direction, what extent of land should be made use of by the owner for each of the above said three purposes. In other words, the erstwhile owner Marulaiah had the right or option to make use of the 7 acres of land for any one of the above purposes. He could have used the entire 7 acres of land either for agriculture industries or poultry farming or dairy farming or for all the three. Therefore, 7 acres of land out of 10 acres had lost its character of agriculture. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal could consider grant of occupancy rights only to an extent of 3 acres.

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.

CIVIL COURT CANNOT RE-OPEN THE INAM LAND DISPUTE

Stumpp Scheule And Somappa (P) ... vs Chandrappa ILR 1985 KAR 3872 After the inams were abolished and the lands vested in the State Government, the only right preserved to the parties is to apply for registration of occupancy rights either as 'Kadim' tenant, permanent tenant or other tenants recognised under the law. When such applications are made, the Special Deputy Commissioner,who is the statutory authority constituted under the Inams Abolition Act, is required to make an enquiry and grant relief. His order is appealable under Section 28 to the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal becomes final. Section 31(3) states that no order passed by the Deputy Commissioner or Tribunal shall be liable to be cancelled or modified except by the High Court under Section 31. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 31 is, however, limited and confined only to orders determining compensation except those referred to in Section 28. ............. It is thus seen that the Inams Abolition Act attaches finality to the orders granting registration of occupancy rights. What does it mean ? Is it not an implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts ? Is not the Inams Abolition Act a complete Code by itself ? Does it not provide machinery for adjudicating the rights of parties with appellate forum to correct the errors of the adjudicating authority ? If that is so, could Civil Courts still exercise general jurisdiction over the same dispute. Had the Legislature intended to provide dual remedies to parties or intended to establish two authorities to determine the same question ? We think not. The grant of occupancy right as 'Kadim' tenant, permanent tenant or any other tenant is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the special authority constituted under the Inams Abolition Act which is a special enactment. Its order is appealable to the prescribed authority and it then becomes final. It is, therefore, legitimate to infer that by reason of the provisions of Section 28 read with Section 31(3) of the Inams Abolition Act, the adjudication as to registration of occupancy right in respect of the land which immediately before the date of vesting was properly included in the holding of the applicant becomes final and conclusive. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to reopen that matter. ............... That, however, does not mean that the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and consequential rectification of entries in the record of rights is not maintainable. ............. So far as it is relevant, Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides : "Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the record of register maintained under this Chapter, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877; and the entry in the record or register shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration."


Rangappa -v.- Chinnappaiah 1965(1) KLJ 145 while referring to the earlier decision in Kempamma -v.- Kempanna 1964(2) KLJ 444 has taken a similar view. There it was observed : "So, it becomes clear that the very provision for an adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 10 and for an appeal from his adjudication under sub-section (1) of Section 28, are by themselves more than sufficient to support the view that that adjudication should be made only in manner provided by the Act and only by those tribunals entrusted with the power to make that adjudication and by no other. If, in addition sub-section (I) of Section 28 adds that the decision of the prescribed authority in appeal shall be final, the inference deducible from the fact that there is a complete machinery provided by the Act for the adjudication of a claim that the Civil Courts shall not exercise jurisdiction for such adjudication stands reinforced."

RELEVANCY OF STATEMENT MADE DURING MUTATION PROCEEDINGS 2003 SC

FULL JUDGMENT

JUSTICE Doraiswamy Raju & JUSTICE Shivaraj V. Patil of The Supreme Court of India in case of Mahila Bajrangi (dead) through L.Rs. & Ors VS Badribai w/o Jagannath & Anr. 2003 (2) SCC 464
Mutation proceedings before revenue authorities are not judicial proceedings in any Court of law and does not decide questions of title to immovable property. Revenue authority ordering mutation of revenue records cannot be Protanto held to be a civil court of concurrent and competent jurisdiction to adjudicate questions of title to immovable property. It is always the decision on an issue that has been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit between the same parties which has been heard and finally decided that is considered to operate as resjudicata and not merely any finding on every incident or collateral question to arrive at such a decision that would constitute resjudicata.
Sections 32 and 33 of Evidence Act are considered to be exceptions to the general principle that the best evidence should be directly let in, during the course of trial to render it admissible in evidence. The statement of facts in the statements made before revenue authorities, would not be sufficient per se to prove the claims made in evidence as an admission. The statement as to any fact in issue or relevant fact to be admissible as an admission must be such as are relevant and may be proved against the person, who makes them or his representative in interest and not on behalf of the person, who makes them, unless when it is of such a nature that if the persons making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third person under Section 32.
Single Judge has committed a grave error in taking the statements made during mutation proceedings to be conclusive evidence and sufficient in law by themselves to establish the factum of marriage of mother of plaintiff with 'G' as well as the parentage of the plaintiff. It cannot be said that mutation proceedings before the Tehsildar under CPC was a judicial proceeding or that it was shown that the statements have been made before a person authorized by law to take evidence. The statements during the mutation proceedings were all after the disputes arose between parties and being self-serving claims and assertions in support of the very claims of the person making it which are seriously disputed, in the absence of any independent corroboration cannot be taken to be conclusive evidence sufficient in law to substantiate those facts sought to and necessitated, to be proved by the plaintiff to claim the relief. By the same standards, which the appellants seek to apply to the appreciation of their case, if the materials produced on behalf of the first defendant are also adjudged, the entries in the School Admission Register and School Leaving Certificate made long before even any dispute between parties arose, pertaining to defendant describing late 'G' as the father, cannot be brushed aside.
Evidence on record that plaintiffs mother was earlier married to another person and that even when she joined 'G', the plaintiff was already a child, would militate against the normal presumption that would be available to be drawn on account of long cohabitation, as also the parentage of the original plaintiff.

It cannot be said that in the light of the finding by the Division Bench that defendant has not proved his adoption, the relief of possession at least should have been granted in favour of the plaintiff. The Division Bench, when it reversed the findings of the Single Judge and directed the dismissal of the suit, was not obliged in law, to grant any relief of possession alone when it was not proved by the plaintiff otherwise, dehors title that she had been in actual possession of the property and had wrongfully and forcibly been dispossessed by defendant. Consequently, no exception could be taken to the dismissal of the suit in its entirety.