CUSTOM SEARCH

LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL ASPECT OF AGRICULTARAL LAND PURCHASE BY INDUSTRIES IN KARNATAKA

Legal and Procedural Aspects in Acquiring Land by Industries in Karnataka



TAHSILDAR HAS GOT POWER ONLY TO ISSUE SURVIVALSHIP CERTIFICATE AND NOT THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE

The Tahsildar has got power only to issue survivalship certificate and not the legal heirship certificate. Basavanni Shankar Ammanagi VS Smt. Keshavva And Ors case: 2002 (2) KarLJ 317A. ILR 2002 KAR 581 …………. The Tahsildar has got power only to issue survivalship certificate and not the legal heirship certificate. If the second respondent contends that she is the class I heir of the deceased-Shivanand, she must get the order from the competent Court to establish that she is the class I heir of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned order passed by. the 5th respondent is not sustainable in the eye of law. The order passed by the 4th respondent holding that the appeal is not maintainable under the order passed by the Tahsildar is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner is maintainable and the order passed by the 5th respondent is not maintainable. Hence, the Assistant-Commissioner has committed an error in passing the impugned order declaring that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

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.

TAHSILDAR CANNOT DECIDE THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES ON SALE DEED

S. Shivanna vs The Special Tahsildar And Ors. 2006 (1) KCCR 652, It is not the function of the Tahsildar for the determination of the rights of parties like a Civil Court with regard to the interest the fourth respondent could still claim under the sale deed of the year 1924 and it is a matter essentially for the Civil Court and not for the Tahsildar. Likewise the change of the name in the revenue records if at all was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1965 and as contended by the fourth respondent, it is by playing" fraud etc., or with concocted documents or otherwise, even such allegations of fraud etc., is a matter that should be made good before a Civil Court and not before the Revenue Authorities. Authorities like Tahsildar totally lack jurisdiction to render finding or make a determination either in respect of an act of fraud or for declaring the rights in favour of any parties under a sale deed etc.

MUTATION ENTRIES BY THEMSELVES DO NOT CONFER ANY RIGHTS

Mutation entries by themselves do not confer any rights. Rights must flow independently of such entries and the Supreme Court in the case of HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED, ROURKELA v. SMT. KALYANI BANERJE, 1973 AIR 408, 1973 SCR (3) 1, 1973 (II) SCWR 749 clearly pointed out that mutation proceedings are not judicial proceedings but are in the nature of fiscal enquiries in the interest of the State for revenue collection. Mutation proceedings and orders passed by Revenue authorities cannot be treated as conclusive evidence for determination of proprietary title to immovable properties.

THE LONG COURSE OF ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS CANNOT BE IGNORED IN PREFERENCE TO THE ENTRIES FOR A SOLITARY YEAR.

The Supreme Court however in the case of B.S.V. TEMPLE v. P. KRISHNA MURTHI, AIR 1973 SC 1299, (1973) 2 SCC 261 struck a note of caution with regard to entries in the revenue records. It pointed out that the presumption arising from several entries in the revenue records of large number of years in respect of ownership and possession of land with certain person does not stand rebutted by mere stray entries in favour of other when the evidence is of uncertain character and is inadequate. …….. The long course of entries which were consistently in favour of the Archakas cannot be ignored in preference to the entries in favour of the temple for a solitary year.

ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS DOES NOT BE THE CAUSE OF ACTION

In RAGHUBIR JHA v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS., AIR 1986 SC 508, 1986 Supp (1) SCC 372 the Supreme Court held that the limitation would begin to commence only on the communication of the termination of the proceedings and not on the date the order was passed by the first authority. In the instant case, there is no evidence adduced by the defendant nor there is any material brought on record in the cross examination of P.W.1 that right to sue accrued much earlier to the date of the suit. As in the instant case the entries in the record of rights, being non-est cannot be held to affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title in possession of the suit property. Such entries cannot also be held to be a threat to the title of the plaintiffs who are in possession of the suit property so as to give rise to the cause of action sufficient for commencement of the period of limitation.

ENTERING NAME IN THE REVENUE RECORDS WITHOUT ANY RIGHT AND TITLE CANNOT CONFER ANY RIGHT OR TITLE

Shivaji S/O Tukaram Sonavale vs Parvathibai W/O Bhavu Pawar 2007 (3) KarLJ 323 In the circumstances, Court was of the view that mere secondary evidence cannot be relied upon in the absence of the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to produce the concerned Deed said to have been executed wherein the question of execution of the deed itself was in question. Unlike that, in the instant case it is one Rukmavva who is said to have executed the gift deed in favour of the husband of the plaintiff which the defendants have disputed and there was no other document in favour of the defendants to claim their right except the revenue entries made in the records. May be as noted by both the courts below, as the plaintiff also being helpless and she lived along with the defendants and under the presumption that her name has been entered in the revenue records, she must have kept quite without verifying the entries in the revenue records and in the usual course the appellants have got entered their name in the revenue records without there being any right and title over the same but, the same cannot confer any right or itle to the appellant to claim a better title over the plaintiff.

CASE LAW ON LAND LAWS

KARNATAKA LAND LAWS