IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO

WRIT APPEAL NO.442/2012(SC/ST)

BETWEEN :

1. Sri.Mukthar Ahmed Baig,

S/o.A.Khader Baig,
Aged about 52 years,

2. Smt.Zaiba Mukthar Ahmed Baig,

W/o.Mukthar Ahmed Baig,
Aged about 45 years,

Both residing at No.103,

1st `N’ Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore – 560 010.
Now both the appellants
Represented by their
GPA Holder Sri.Altaf,
S/o.Ameer Jan,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.2657, Chickpet,
Doddaballapura Town,
Bangalore Rural District. ...APPELLANTS

(By Sri.C.M.Nagabushana, Adv. for

Sri.Ananda K., Adv.)

AND :

1. Sri.K.Jairam,
S/o.late Kariyappa,
Aged about 53 years,
 -2-

R/at No.45/1,
1st Main Road, 2nd Cross,
Valmikinagar,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore – 26.

2. Sri.B.Shankara Naik,
S/o.late Janardhana Nayak,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at Kareem Sonnenahalli,
Madhure Hobli,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.

3. The Assistant Commissioner,

Doddaballapura Sub-Division,
Vishweshwaraiah Tower,
Bangalore – 1.

4. The Deputy Commissioner,

Bangalore Rural District,
Vishweshwaraiah Tower,
Bangalore – 1. …RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, Adv. for C/R1,

Smt.S.Susheela, AGA for R3 & R4)
. . . .

This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the

Karnataka High Court Act praying to set-aside the order
passed in the writ petition No.9097/2007(SC/ST) dated
23.11.2011.

This writ appeal coming on for preliminary

hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the order passed

by the learned Single Judge, who has declined to

 -3-

interfere with the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner,

who have set-aside three sale deeds and directed

restoration of the land in favour of the 1st respondent in

this appeal.

2. The subject matter of these proceedings is land

bearing Sy.No.71/3A measuring 4 acres 24 guntas

situated in Kareem Sonnenahalli village, Madhure

Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

3. The case of the appellant is originally, land

bearing Sy.No.71/3 of Kareem Sonnenahalli village,

Madhure Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural

District measuring 9 acres 8 guntas was granted to

Sri.Kariappa, S/o.Late Muniyappa and Muniyappa S/o.

Mariyappa. The said Kariyappa, S/o.Late Muniyappa

and Muniyappa, S/o.Mariyappa were equally granted 4

acres 24 guntas each by a common order of the

Tahsildar in No. LND/SR/21/1978-79 dated

19.04.1979. The Common Grant Certificate in Form

No.1 was also issued on 19.04.1979 itself. A copy of the

 -4-

said Grant Certificate is produced as Annexure `A’.

Thereafter, Sy.No.71/3 was phoded into two portions

i.e., Sy. No.71/3A measuring 4 acres 24 guntas, which

was granted to Kariyappa, S/o.Muniyappa and

Sy.No.71/3B measuring 4 acres 24 guntas, which was

granted to Muniyappa, S/o.Mariyappa. As per the

grant, the name of Kariyappa and Muniyappa came to

be entered in the Revenue Records. True copy of the

Record of Rights in respect of Sy.No.71/3A is produced

as Annexure `C’. The Index of land in respect of both

Sy. Nos. 71/3A and 71/3B was produced as Annexure

`D’. True copy of the RTC extracts in respect of un-

phoded Sy.No.71/3 for the period 1974-75 to 1978-79

is produced as Annexure `E’. The said Sy.No.71/3

measuring 9 acres 8 guntas was a Sarkari pada, which

came to be granted in favour of Kariyappa and

Muniyappa. True copies of the RTC extracts in respect

of Sy.No.71/3A measuring 4 acres 20 guntas from

1989-90 up to 2006-07 are produced as Annexures `F1

to F5’ respectively.
 -5-

4. The case of the appellant is, as per the

Karnataka Land Grant Rules as operative on the date of

issue of Grant Certificate, the non-alienation period

prohibiting the sale of the land was for a period of 15

years from 19.04.1979. It is only after the period of

non-alienation, Kariyappa S/o Muniyappa and

Muniyappa S/o Late Mariyappa approached the

concerned revenue authorities seeking permission to

sell the land bearing Sy.No.71/3A and 71/3B. The

concerned Revenue Inspector submitted his report on

26.05.1995 by recommending for sanction of permission

to sell the land to his higher authorities. Based on the

said report, the Tahsildar passed an order on

26.05.1995 according permission for the sale of the said

land. One of the grantee Sri.Kariyappa So Mariyappa

passed away on 14.07.1998. The said Kariyappa during

his lifetime sold the land bearing No.71/3A measuring

04 acres 24 guntas to Sri.Sheikh Mohammed for

valuable sale consideration vide registered Sale

Deed dated 05.08.1995. In terms of the sale deed, the

name of Sri.Sheikh Mohammed came to be entered in

 -6-

the revenue records as per MR 29/1995-96. After the

death of the said Sheikh Mohammed on 16.02.1997, the

name of his son Abdul Khuddus came to be entered in

the revenue records as per the order dated 10.04.1997

in MR 70/1996-97. The said Abdul Khuddus being the

absolute owner of the said land sold the same for

valuable consideration in favour of appellant No.1 under

a registered sale deed dated 23.05.1997. On the basis

of the said registered Sale Deed, the name of appellant

No.1 came to be entered in the revenue records as per

MR.No.3/1998-99. Thus, the appellant became the

absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the said

land. He has been paying taxes to the authorities. He

has invested huge amount for developing the said land.

When things stood thus, the first respondent

Sri.K.Jayaram filed an application before the Assistant

Commissioner for setting aside the alienation and for re-

delivering the said property to him on the ground that

his father was the grantee and after his death, the

aforesaid sale deeds have come into existence which are

all fabricated documents. After enquiry, the Assistant

 -7-

Commissioner passed an order allowing the appeal and

directing resumption of the said land. Aggrieved by the

same, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Deputy

Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing

both the parties set aside the order of the Assistant

Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the

Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration and in

accordance with law. Thereafter, the Assistant

Commissioner in PCTL.SR.75/2003-04 held an enquiry

and by a considered order dated 08.04.2005 allowed the

application, set aside the alienations and directed

resumption of land. Aggrieved by the said order, the

appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy

Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District. The Deputy

Commissioner on re-consideration of the entire material

on record by an order dated 15.05.200 dismissed the

appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant

preferred a writ petition before this Court in

W.P.No.9097/2007 (SC/ST). The learned single Judge

after hearing, held the alienations being contrary to

Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and

 -8-

Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for

short) is “null and void” and therefore, he did not find

any infirmity in the impugned orders. Therefore, he

dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the said order of

the learned single Judge, the appellant is in appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the

impugned orders, contend, if the stand of the

Government is to be accepted that the said land was

never granted either to the original vendor of the

appellant or to the father of the first respondent, the

Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction under the

Act to entertain the application by the first respondent.

Therefore, the entire proceedings before him is one

without jurisdiction and consequently the order passed

is one without jurisdiction and therefore, all the three

orders are liable to be set aside on that ground.

Alternatively, he contended that if it is a granted land, it

is not granted to the first respondent’s father, it is

granted to one Kariyappa S/o Muniyappa and

Muniyappa S/o Mariyappa. Those grantees have not

 -9-

filed any application before the Assistant Commissioner

for setting aside the alienation and for resumption of

land. Therefore, the first respondent being a total

stranger to the land in question, on his application, the

impugned orders could not have been passed. He also

submitted, the appellant has filed a suit for decree of

permanent injunction against the first respondent

herein in O.S.No.342/2001 on the file of the Prl.Civil

Judge (Sr.Dn.), Doddaballapura in which the first

respondent remained exparte. Therefore, the Court was

pleased to grant a decree of permanent injunction

restraining the first respondent as well as the purchaser

from the first respondent from interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by

the appellant which goes to show that the plaintiff is in

possession of the property. Even otherwise, the revenue

records produced in this case, the mutation order

passed, all clearly demonstrate from the date of

purchase, the appellant is in possession of the property.

Therefore, he submits the impugned orders requires to

be interfered with.
 - 10 -

6. Learned counsel appearing for the first

respondent supporting the impugned order contend that

the land in dispute was granted in favour of his father

Kariyappa bin Muniramaiah. Kariyappa died on

14.01.1995. It is after his death, some person by name

Kariyappa S/o Muniyappa has executed a sale deed

dated 05.08.1995 in favour of Sheikh Mohammed. After

the death of Sheikh Mohammed, his son Abdul

Khuddus has executed a sale deed dated 23.05.1997 in

favour of Muktar Ahmed Beigh. His father, who is the

original grantee has not executed any sale deed and the

sale deed which is executed is contrary to Section 4(2) of

the Act. All the three authorities were justified in

setting aside the alienations and directing restoration of

the land to him. Though the Government was directed

to file a report which report, which is now filed in the

Court, the Government contends that there was no

grant of this land at all. The said report is now

challenged by him by way of a writ petition in

W.P.No.38411/2013 before the learned single Judge

and the said writ petition is awaiting the decision of this

 - 11 -

Court in these proceedings and therefore, he submits,

he is entitled to the resumption of the said land.

7. The learned Government Advocate fairly

conceded, without proper application of mind, without

verification of records, the Government has taken

different stands at the different stages of the

proceedings. However, when this Court directed a close

examination of the records and to submit a report, then

on careful examination of the original records, it was

noticed that the Grant Certificate on which the parties

are relying on, viz., LND/SR/21/1978-79 dated

19.04.1979 do not pertain to the grant of land, i.e.,

Sy.No.71/3 or 3A or 3B either in favour of the first

respondent father or in respect of the appellant’s

original vendor. The said number refers to Sy.No.66 of

Kareem Sonnenahalli Village, Madhure Hobli,

Doddaballapura Taluk. Therefore, the Grant

Certificates on which both the parties relying on his not

a genuine document. In the register, there was no

reference of the same and that apart, they are all

fabricated documents. The said land is a land

 - 12 -

belonging to the Government. It is a Pada land. It is

not granted to anyone. It is in possession of the

Government and therefore, in that context, it is

submitted that appropriate orders are to be passed by

this Court, taking note of the status report filed by the

Government.

8. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear both the

appellant as well as the respondent are claiming the

property which is the subject matter of the proceedings

by way of grant on 19.04.1979 in LND/SR/21/1978-79.

9. Before this Court, the appellant has produced a

certified copy of the grant under which the claim title is

traced. At the top of the Certificate, the number of the

Grant LND/SR/21/1978-79 is written. The Grant

Certificate shows that it was for an Upset Price. Even

that was vague. Therefore, it is virtually a free Grant. It

further shows one Sri.C.S.Mandanna who was the

Tahsildar has granted the land to Kariyappa and

Muniyappa jointly. In page No.2, where particulars of

the land is mentioned at Sl.No.1, it is mentioned as (1)

 - 13 -

Kariyappa S/o Muniyappa and (2) Kariyappa bin

Muniramaiah as against their names, Sy.No.71/3, 04

acres 24 guntas is mentioned. The village is mentioned

as Kareem Sonnenahalli. It also shows the grant is in

terms of a sketch. The sketch is not annexed. The said

Grant Certificate do not prescribe the period of non-

alienation.

10. The first respondent has also produced a

Grant Certificate, which according to him is the original

Grant Certificate dated 19.04.1979. In the said

Certificate also, at the top, it is mentioned as

LND/SR/21/1978-79 dated 19.04.1979. It also shows

that the grant was for a Upset Price, which was vague.

It was granted as per Rule No.12 of KLG Rules

(Amended), by Sri.C.S.Mandanna, the Tahsildar in

favour of Kariyappa bin Muniramaiah. In page No.2,

where particulars of the land are given, only the name of

Kariyappa bin Muniramaiah and the Sy.No.71/3

measuring 04 acres 24 guntas is mentioned.

 - 14 -

As against this, the learned Government Advocate

has made available to us, the original register of grant

for the period from 1962-63 to 1987-88. At Sl.No.9 –

file No. LND.SR.21/1978-79 is mentioned. In column

No.3 – name of the village is mentioned as Kareem

Sonnenahalli. In Column No.4 – Madure Hobli is

mentioned. In Column No.5, the names of the following

persons are mentioned:

1) Sanjeevamma W/o Sanjeevappa;

2) H.S.Geetha W/o Lakshmana;

3) Ramakrishna S/o Narasaiah;

4) A.Jagadeesha S/o Anjanappa;

5) A.Nagaraju S/o Venkataramana.

In Column No.6, as against their names, the word

“SC” is mentioned. That means, all of them belong to

Schedule Caste. Thereafter, in Column No.7, it is

mentioned as Upset Price is waived as per GO.No.RD.29

& GP 75 dated 24.03.1979. In Column No.10, where

survey number of the land granted is mentioned as 66

and in the next column, the extent of land is mentioned

as 03 acres 10 guntas, 03 acres 10 guntas, 04 acres 10

 - 15 -

guntas, 04 acres 10 guntas, 04 acres 10 guntas against

their names respectively and then in the last column,

the amount of cess is mentioned.

11. In the status report filed by the respondents 3

& 4, it is stated that Sy.No.71/3A originally Sy.No.71

measuring totally 53 acres 37 guntas as per the

Original Karda for the year 1879 and the nature of the

land shown as Sarkari Beelu. As per the Resurvey

Tippani dated 19.11.1915, the said survey number

shown as Sarkari Beelu. On 08.03.1948, the said land

– i.e., Sy.No.71 total extent of 53 acres 37 guntas was

poded and given sub-numbers as per the Hissa Survey

Tippani, Hissa Pakka Book, Atlas, Akarband inf avour of

5 persons – original Khatedars as under:

Sy. NAME Inu Khara Balanc File No.

No. (A.g) b (A.g) e
(A.g)
71/ Siddamma W/o 9-10 1-11 7-39 974/45-
1 Sidda 46
72/ Chikkamuniyapp 11-35 0-08 11-27 973/45-
2 a S/o Beerappa 46
71/ Byladali S/o 9-15 0-07 9-08 972/45-
3 Yelliga 46
71/ C.Anjinappa S/o 11-35 0-08 11-27 971/45-
4 Chinnanna 46
71/ Girijabhoyi 11-22 0-08 11-14
5
 - 16 -

12. Thus, Sy.No.71/3, which is the subject matter

of these proceedings has vested with the Government

for non-payment of land revenue. In the RTC, for the

years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1963-64, 1966-67, 1967-68,

1968-69 and for the year 1969-70 to 1978-79 in

Column No.9 of the RTC, it is mentioned as Sarkari

Pada.

13. If what the State Government has stated in the

report is correct, then the Grants on which both the

appellant and the first respondent is relying on is not

genuine. No rights accrue to them by virtue of the said

Grants. Consequently, the Sale Deeds conveying the

property which is the subject matter of the said Grant

Certificate also would not convey any title. If the Grant

is in favour of Kariyappa bin Muniramaiah, the said

Kariyappa died on 14.01.1995 as is clear from the death

certificate produced, which is dated 27.01.1995. The

Sale Deeds have come into existence subsequent to his

death on 05.08.1995 and on 23.05.1997. Therefore, the

 - 17 -

said Sale Deeds would have no value, even if the Grant

was in his favour. Further, the appellants specific case

is, the Grant was not in favour of the said Kariyappa bin

Muniramaiah, but it was in favour of Kariyappa bin

Muniyappa. Even if the Grant was in favour of

Kariyappa bin Muniyappa, as it is a Grant for an Upset

Price, which was also waived according to the Land

Grant Rules, the same could not have been alienated at

all. The specific case pleaded by the appellant is, firstly,

as the alienation has taken place after a period of 15

years, after the expiry of non-alienation clause, the sale

is valid. Alternatively, it is contended as Section 4(2) of

the Act mandates all alienations subsequent to the

commencement of the Act has to be done with the prior

permission of the Government, the Grantee applied to

the Tahsildar for permission. In pursuance of the said

application, the Revenue Inspector came to the spot, did

the mahazar in the presence of the adjoining land

owners and the villagers and he submitted a report

recommending for grant of permission. Accordingly, the

permission was granted by the Tahsildar and therefore,

 - 18 -

the Sale Deed executed by the original Grantee after

obtaining the permission is not hit by Section 4(2) of the

Act. What Section 4(2) of the Act provides is prior

permission of the Government for such alienation, not

prior permission of the Tahsildar. Admittedly, there was

no prior permission of the Government obtained prior to

the same. Therefore, the said so-called permission

granted by the Tahsildar has no value.

14. It was contended, assuming that the alienation

is invalid as hit by Section 4(2) of the Act, the original

grantee has not approached the Assistant

Commissioner for setting aside the alienation and

restoration of the land, the first respondent being a total

stranger at his instance, the said alienations cannot be

set at top. Section 4 of the Act which deals with the

Prohibition of Transfer of Granted Lands. It declares

that notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement,

contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land

made either before or after the commencement of this

Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such

land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section

 - 19 -

(2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in

such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have

conveyed by such transfer. Section 5 of the Act deals

with the Resumption and Restitution of Granted Lands.

It provides that where, on application by any interested

person or on information given in writing by any person

or suo motu, and after such enquiry as he deems

necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that

the transfer of any granted land is null and void under

sub-section (1) of Section 4, he may by order take

possession of such land after evicting all person in

possession thereof in such manner as may be

prescribed:

15. A reading of the aforesaid two provisions

makes it very clear, if there is any alienation of the

granted land in contravention of Section 4(1) or 4(2) of

the Act, the law declares, such alienation as “null and

void”. No order by any Authority is required. Once the

law declares it as null and void, either the person

interested in the land or any person may give

information about such alienation or suo motu, the

 - 20 -

Assistant Commissioner is vested with the power to

make an order taking possession of the said land after

evicting all persons in possession thereof in such

manner as prescribed.

16. Even if we accept the contention of the

appellant that the first respondent’s father was not the

original grantee and therefore, he had no interest in the

land, on the information furnished by him or even suo

motu, the Assistant Commissioner has a jurisdiction to

pass an order to take possession of the land by evicting

all the persons who are in occupation. The declaration

that is null and void is by operation of law and not

dependant on any order passed by the Authorities and

therefore, we do no see any substance in the said

contention.

17. The evidence on record produced by the

parties as well as the original records now produced by

the Government before us shows in so far as land

bearing Sy.No.71/3 is concerned, after the so-called

Grant, no mutation entries are made as against the said

 - 21 -

claim. For the first time, name of Kariyappa is

mentioned in the RTC for the year 1989-90 and

onwards. Though the Grant was in the year 1979,

acting on the Sale Deed of 05.08.1995, the name of

Sheikh Mohammed was entered in the RTC. After his

death, name of his son Abdul Khuddus is entered and

after the Sale Deed dated 23.05.1997, the name of the

appellant is entered in the RTC. There is no mutation

order passed ordering the name of Kariyappa in the year

1989-90. In so far as the first respondent is concerned,

his father’s name does not find a place at any point of

time till his death and after his death, his name is not

entered. Infact, the index of Land Grant Register Book

which is made available to us shows, in so far as

Sy.No.71/3 of Kareem Sonnenahalli, Doddaballapura

Taluk is concerned, for the first time on 21.01.1982, an

entry is made to the effect that Phodi No.LND/SR/28

and after amendment, the said property was bifurcated

by Sy.No.71/3A and 71/3B is phoded and in whose

name Sy.No.71/3B is phoded. Normally, when a

particular survey number, title or a portion of the same

 - 22 -

is alienated, on a request made by such parties, in

presence of both the parties, the property is bifurcated /

phoded and separate numbers are given. By assigning

such numbers, the original number is retained and to

the separated property, a new number is given.

Strangely, in this Sy.No.71/3, they have given

Sy.No.71/3A and 71/3B without any basis whatever.

18. At this stage, it is necessary to point out that

on 19.07.2012, after perusing the records submitted by

the Government dated 16.07.2012, the Bench headed

by the Hon’ble Chief Justice passed the following order:

“We have perused the report dated

16.07.2012.

Learned counsel for the appellants

states that the land in question is not in
possession of any party. We direct
respondent No.3 to take possession of the
land in question and hold it was Custodia
Legis awaiting further orders of the Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants

prays for an adjournment for the reason
that the report has been received by him
 - 23 -

only yesterday. Respondent No.1 is neither

present nor represented in Court. There is
likelihood that Saguvali Chit on which all
the parties depend is a forged document.
Therefore, the presence of Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 is necessary.

Issue bailable warrantk in a sum of

Rs.10,000/- to secure the presence of
Respondent No.1 on the next date of
hearing.

Notice be issued to Respondent No.2

through the SHO, Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bangalore Rural, returnable for
09.08.2012.

The appellant shall also be present in

person in Court.

Renotify on 09.08.2012”.

Subsequently, on 09.08.2012, the following order

is passed:

Respondent No.1 Sri.K.Jairam, and

Sri.Altaf, GPA Holder of appellants are
present in Court.
It is not in dispute that the State has
assumed possession over the land in
 - 24 -

dispute. Counsel for the respondents prays

for an opportunity to file objections.
Objections may be filed by any party who
is desirous of doing so, within two months
from today.
Renotify on 09.11.2012”.

Again, on 09.11.2012, the following order is

passed:

Learned AGA states that the stand of

the State is that no grant whatsoever has
been made to anyone and that the
possession of the land in question remains
with the State as on date.
Since the matter is being adjourned,
issue fresh notice to Respondent No.2
returnable for 21.01.2013.
We take note of the fact that
Respondent No.2 was not represented
before the learned Single Judge.
Renotify on 21.01.2013”.

19. From the aforesaid orders, it is clear that in

pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on

19.07.2012, the Respondents No.3 & 4 have taken

possession of the land and they are in possession. The

 - 25 -

said report on the basis of which, the said order is

passed is now the subject matter of a writ petition.

Even otherwise, as set out above, if the land in question

is a granted land and the alienations are made contrary

to the mandatory provisions of Section 4(2), the said

alienations are null and void. The Assistant

Commissioner has passed an order directing

resumption of the land and now possession is taken.

The records produced shows, it is originally a

Government land. It was granted. The grantee did not

pay tax. Therefore, the said land again vested with the

Government as Pada land. The said land has not been

granted prima facie either to the first respondent’s

father or to the appellant’s predecessor in title the

original grantee and therefore, it continues to be a

Government land. Therefore, in the light of the

aforesaid materials, if there is no grant at all, the

appellant is right in saying that the Act is not

applicable, in which event, the land continues to be

Government land and it is put in possession of the

Government only. If it is a granted land, admittedly, the

 - 26 -

alienation is contrary to Section 4(2) and the said

alienation is null and void and the Assistant

Commissioner has rightly passed an order for

resumption of land and possession of land is taken and

therefore, he cannot find fault with the said order. The

order of the Assistant Commissioner directing

resumption of the land and handing over possession of

land to the first respondent on the assumption that he

is the son of the original grantee. From the material set

out above, there was no grant in the name of the father

of the first respondent also. From the said so-called

Grant, he has not enjoyed possession of the property.

He has not been dispossessed. In the circumstances,

the order directing delivery of the land to the first

respondent cannot be sustained. That portion of the

order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the order

of the learned single Judge is hereby set aside. In these

circumstances, the appropriate order to be passed is as

under:

(a) Writ Appeal is partly allowed.

 - 27 -

(b) The order directing delivery of possession of

the land to the first respondent is hereby set aside.

(c) The land in question admittedly is now in

possession of the Government, and it would continue to

be so.

(d) However, liberty is reserved to the appellant

as well as to the first respondent to approach a

competent Civil Court of original jurisdiction to work

out their remedies, if any. The parties shall implead the

Government as a party and its concerned officials as

parties, then only such order will have any legal effect.

It is not a solitary case where this Court has come

across instances where the Government land is sought

to be mis-appropriated with the active collusion of the

Government officials. The proceedings shows, at early

stage, the Government has accepted the Grant, and

mutation entries of the land in question and on the

basis of that admission, the parties are asserting their

rights on the ground that it is an undisputed fact. Now

ultimately, it emerges that is a Government land. When

it is a Government land, all the entries made in the

 - 28 -

revenue records are without any basis and obviously,

with the collusion with the parties concerned.

Therefore, it is of paramount importance atleast now,

such things should not be allowed to continue.

Therefore, we hereby direct the Government:

i) To initiate appropriate proceedings

against all the concerned officials who

are responsible for making such

entries in the revenue records contrary

to the statutory provisions.

ii) They shall also initiate criminal

proceedings against all the

Government officials who are found

responsible for allowing this

Government property to be enjoyed by

others who had no authority

whatsoever.

Send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary as

well as to the Revenue Secretary and also the Revenue

and Law Minister to monitor the departmental

 - 29 -

proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings and

submit a report to this Court within six months there

from.

Office is directed to list this matter before this

Court, on expiry of six months to find out what action

the higher authorities of the Government have taken in

order to protect the public interest and to prosecute

those persons who acted contrary to the public interest.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE

SPS/dh*