Full Judgment Text
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.468 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SUNIL CHAJED,
S/O LATE H DEVICHAND,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85/1, D.V.G.ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
SRI NABHIRAJA HERA,
S/O LATE B.T.JAIN,
NO.29, KHB COLONY,
NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE,
6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095. ... APPELLANT
(BY MR.UDAYA HOLLA, SR.COUNSEL FOR
MR.K.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
D.C.OFFICE, BENGALURU DIVISION,
K.G.ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
(REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
URBAN DIST.).
2
2. TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
TALUK OFFICE, DIESEL SHED ROAD,
KRISHNARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 036.
3. HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE
OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.192,
WHITEFIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 048,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.S.RAJASHEKAR AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
MR.K.ARUN KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR.M.V.SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
- - -
THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD
01.10.2020 IN W.P.209/2020 (KLR) ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND TO DISMISS
THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has assailed the validity of the order
dated 01.10.2020 passed by learned single Judge by which
the writ petition preferred by respondent No.3 has been
allowed and the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the
Tahsildar under the Section 140(2) of Karnataka Land
3
Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short) has been quashed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that appellant claims to be the owner of land
measuring 1 acre and 4.08 guntas of land bearing
Sy.No.91/1A (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question'
for short). The authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling
Regulation Act, 1976 took possession of the land in question.
The appellant challenged the order passed by the authorities
under the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which
by an order dated 07.03.1998 directed restoration of land to
the appellant. In compliance of the order passed by the
tribunal, the name of the appellant was restored in the
revenue records. The appellant filed the suit viz.,
O.S.No.26187/2014 seeking the relief of permanent
injunction restraining the respondent No.3 from interfering
with the peaceful possession in respect of land in question.
3. It is the case of the appellant that even though
the land was restored in favour of the appellant, it was not
possible to identify the boundary of the land in question and
4
therefore, the appellant made an application to the Deputy
Commissioner to fix the boundaries, which was forwarded to
the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar thereupon initiated proceeding
and issued notice to respondent No.3 and others and
thereafter passed an order on 22.02.2019 directing the
Assistant Director of Land Records, Bangalore East Taluk to
take steps to fix the boundaries of the land in question. The
respondent No.3 challenged the aforesaid order in a writ
petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated
14.08.2019 allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter
to the Tahsildar to examine the issue with regard to
jurisdiction and thereafter to proceed to adjudicate the claim
on merits.
4. The Tahsildar by an order dated 13.11.2019 held
that he has jurisdiction to fix the boundaries of the land in
question in view of Section 61(1)(h) and Section 140 of the
Act. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in a
writ petition preferred by respondent No.3. The learned
single Judge by an order dated 01.10.2020 allowed the writ
petition and has inter alia held that Tahsildar has no
5
jurisdiction to fix the boundaries. The order passed by the
Tahsildar has been quashed. In the aforesaid factual
background this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that learned Single Judge erred in holding that
revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to fix the boundaries
in respect of land in question on the ground that the same is
situated within the limit of Municipal Corporation. It is also
urged that Section 61(2)(h) of the Act read with Section
140(2) of the Act empowers the Tahsildar to decide the issue
with regard to fixation of boundary. It is further submitted
that Tahsildar has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order
for fixing the boundary in respect of land in question. In
support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
on decision of this Court in
AND OTHERS VS. SMT. H.J.SHANKUNTHALAMMA', ILR
2007 KAR 5106.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional
Government Advocate submitted that the revenue authority
has jurisdiction to conduct the survey and to fix the
6
boundaries in respect of the land situated within the limits of
Municipal Corporation also. Learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.3 submitted that the lands in question are
converted and are situated within the limits of BBMP and
therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the
land in question as the same is not revenue Land. In support
of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on
division bench decision of this court in 'J.M.NARAYANA
AND OTHERS VS. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
BANGALORE, BY ITS COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
BANGALORE AND OTHERS', ILR 2005 KAR 60 and
decisions of learned Single Judges of this court in
'BASHEERKHAN vs. THE TAHSILDAR,
W.P.No..76164/2013, 'KIRLOSKAR ELECTRICAL CO.
PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER',
W.P.NO.105734/2016 and a full bench decision of this
court in 'SMT.JAYAMMA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE AND OTHERS', ILR 2020 KAR 1449.
7
7. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. The Act is an Act to
consolidate and amend the laws relating to land and land
revenue administration in the State of Karnataka. Section
2(12) of the Act, defines the expression 'holding', whereas,
Section 2(32) defines the expression 'survey number'.
Chapter VI of the Act deals with revenue jurisdiction. Section
60(a) which defines the expression 'land'. Section 2(12),
Section 2(32), Section 61(2)(h) and Section 140 of the Act
read as under:
( 12 ) “holding” means a portion of land
held by a holder
( 32 ) “survey number” means a portion of
land of which the area and assessment are
separately entered under an indicative number
in the land 1964: KAR. ACT 12] Land Revenue
463 records; and “sub-division of a survey
number” means a portion of a survey number
of which the area and assessment are
separately entered in the land records under an
indicative number subordinate to that of the
survey number of which it is a portion;
8
60
. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless
the context otherwise requires,—
a
( ) ‘land’ includes the sites of villages,
towns and cities, trees, growing crops and
grass, fruit upon, and juice in, trees, rights of
way, ferries and fisheries;
61
( ) Exclusive Jurisdiction of Revenue
Courts and bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts
1. xxxxx
2
.Subject to the exceptions hereinafter
specified, no Civil Court shall exercise
jurisdiction as to any of the following matters,
namely:-
(a)xxxx
(b) xxxx
© xxxxx
(d) xxxxx
(e) xxxxx
(f) xxxxx
(g)xxxxx
h
( ) claims regarding boundaries fixed under
this Act or under any other law for the time
being in force, or to set aside any order passed
by a competent officer under any such law with
regard to boundary marks or survey marks:
140
. Determination of boundaries of
lands forming a survey number or a holding.—
9
(1) At the time of a survey, the boundary
of a survey number, a sub-division of a survey
number or a holding,—
(a) if undisputed, shall be recorded and
marked as pointed out by the holder or person
in occupation, and
(b) if disputed, or if the holder or person
in occupation be not present, shall be fixed by
the Survey Officer, in accordance with the land
records relating to the land and after making
such inquiry as he considers necessary.
(2) If any dispute arises concerning the
boundary of a holding which has not been
surveyed, or if at any time after the completion
of a survey, a dispute arises concerning the
boundary of a survey number, a sub-division of
a survey number or a holding, the Tahsildar
shall decide the dispute having due regard to
the land records, if they afford satisfactory
evidence of the boundary previously fixed, and
if not, after such inquiry as he considers
necessary.
8. Section 2(12) of the Act defines the expression
‘holding’ to mean a portion of land held by a holder. Section
2(32) of the Act defines the ‘survey number’ to mean a
portion of land of which area and assessment are separately
10
entered in a indicative number in the land records. The
aforesaid expressions viz., ‘holding’ and ‘survey number’
have to be read with Section 140 of the Act, which provides
for determination of boundaries of land forming a survey
number or a holding. Thus, if at the time of survey, boundary
of any survey number or sub division of a survey number or
a holding is disputed, shall be fixed by survey officer in
accordance with the land records relating to the land and
after making such enquiry as he considers necessary. Section
140(2) of the Act provides that if any dispute arises
concerning the boundary of survey number or a sub division
of a survey number or a holding, the Tahsildar shall decide
the dispute having due regard to the land records. Thus, it is
evident that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Act has
power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a
holding. The aforesaid power can be exercised in respect of a
survey number or a holding irrespective of the fact whether
same is situated within the Municipal limits or outside the
municipal limits. Therefore, the order passed by the Tahsildar
dated 13.11.2019 inter alia holding that it has jurisdiction to
11
decide the matter pertaining to fixing the boundary of lands
forming survey number does not suffer from any infirmity.
9. The learned Single Judge has taken into account
Section 112-D of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,
which deals with power of Commissioner to survey lands and
buildings. The aforesaid Section reads as under:
112D. Survey of lands and buildings and
preparation of property register. - (1) The
Commissioner shall, subject to the general or
special orders of the Government, direct a
survey of buildings or lands or both within the
city with a view to the assessment of property
tax and may obtain the services of any qualified
person or agency for conducting such survey
and preparation of property register.
(2) A property register shall be
maintained in such manner and containing such
particulars in respect of buildings or lands or
both as specified in Schedule III.
(3) For the purpose of preparation of
property register or assessment of property tax
in respect of any buildings or lands or both, the
Commissioner or any person authorised by him
in this behalf may enter, inspect, survey or
measure any land or building after giving notice
12
to the owner or occupier before such inspection
and the owner or occupier shall be bound to
furnish necessary information required for the
purpose:
Provided that such entry into and upon
any building or land shall be made between
sunrise and sunset:
Provided further that in the case of
buildings used as human dwelling due regard
shall be paid to the social and religious customs
of the occupiers and no apartment in the actual
occupancy of a woman shall be entered until
she has been informed that she is at liberty to
withdraw and every reasonable facility has been
afforded to her for withdrawing]
10. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is
evident that the power has been conferred on the
Commissioner to direct survey of buildings or lands within
the city with a view to assessment of property tax. The
aforesaid provision has no bearing so far as the issue
involved in this case is concerned viz., whether Tahsildar has
jurisdiction to decide the matter pertaining to fixing the
boundary of lands forming survey number. The provisions of
the Act as well as Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act
13
operate in different fields and in any case, the scope and
ambit of the power under Section 140(2) of the Act cannot
be determined with reference to Section 112D of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, which even otherwise
has no bearing on the issue.
11. It is settled in law that judgments have not to be
read as Euclid’s theorems and their ration descideni has to be
determined with reference to the factual matrix in which the
case is decided. The reliance placed by the respondent No.3
on the decision of division bench of this court in
J.M.NARAYANA AND OTHERS VS. CORPORATION OF
CITY OF BANGALORE
supra is concerned, it is pertinent to
note that the division bench in the aforesaid case was
dealing with the issue of non payment of court fee on the
memo of appeal. In the aforesaid context, the division bench
of this court while dealing with the issue of valuation in
paragraph 5 held that if certain lands are included in the
Corporation limits are registered or used for cultivation
purposes would not imply that the land continues to pay land
revenue under the Land Revenue Act. It was further held that
14
Land Revenue Act would cease to be applicable no sooner the
land is brought within the limits of Corporation. The aforesaid
finding recorded by the division bench has to be understood
in the context in which it has been made namely for the
purpose of valuation of the land in context of payment of
court fee. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid decision does
not deal with the powers of Tahsildar under Section 140(2) of
the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid
decision is not an authority for the proposition that the
provisions of the Act do not apply to the land in question if it
is included in Municipal Limits. The aforesaid decision is
therefore, of no assistance to respondent No.3 in the facts of
the case. Similarly, the decision rendered by learnd Single
KIRLOSKAR ELECTRICALS CO. PVT. LTD
Judges in case of
and BASHEERKHAN
supra are of no assistance to the
SMT
respondent No.3. The decision of the full bench in
JAYMMA AND OTHERS SUPRA
is an authority for the
proposition that under Section 136(2) and (3) of Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, the revenue officials cannot decide the
question involving the title and possession. The aforesaid
15
decision has also no bearing on the issue involved in this
appeal.
In view of preceding analysis, the order passed by
learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the writ petition
filed by respondent No.3 is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.468 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SUNIL CHAJED,
S/O LATE H DEVICHAND,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85/1, D.V.G.ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
SRI NABHIRAJA HERA,
S/O LATE B.T.JAIN,
NO.29, KHB COLONY,
NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE,
6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095. ... APPELLANT
(BY MR.UDAYA HOLLA, SR.COUNSEL FOR
MR.K.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
D.C.OFFICE, BENGALURU DIVISION,
K.G.ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
(REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
URBAN DIST.).
2
2. TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
TALUK OFFICE, DIESEL SHED ROAD,
KRISHNARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 036.
3. HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE
OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.192,
WHITEFIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 048,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.S.RAJASHEKAR AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
MR.K.ARUN KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR.M.V.SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
- - -
THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD
01.10.2020 IN W.P.209/2020 (KLR) ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND TO DISMISS
THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has assailed the validity of the order
dated 01.10.2020 passed by learned single Judge by which
the writ petition preferred by respondent No.3 has been
allowed and the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the
Tahsildar under the Section 140(2) of Karnataka Land
3
Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short) has been quashed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that appellant claims to be the owner of land
measuring 1 acre and 4.08 guntas of land bearing
Sy.No.91/1A (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question'
for short). The authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling
Regulation Act, 1976 took possession of the land in question.
The appellant challenged the order passed by the authorities
under the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which
by an order dated 07.03.1998 directed restoration of land to
the appellant. In compliance of the order passed by the
tribunal, the name of the appellant was restored in the
revenue records. The appellant filed the suit viz.,
O.S.No.26187/2014 seeking the relief of permanent
injunction restraining the respondent No.3 from interfering
with the peaceful possession in respect of land in question.
3. It is the case of the appellant that even though
the land was restored in favour of the appellant, it was not
possible to identify the boundary of the land in question and
4
therefore, the appellant made an application to the Deputy
Commissioner to fix the boundaries, which was forwarded to
the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar thereupon initiated proceeding
and issued notice to respondent No.3 and others and
thereafter passed an order on 22.02.2019 directing the
Assistant Director of Land Records, Bangalore East Taluk to
take steps to fix the boundaries of the land in question. The
respondent No.3 challenged the aforesaid order in a writ
petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated
14.08.2019 allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter
to the Tahsildar to examine the issue with regard to
jurisdiction and thereafter to proceed to adjudicate the claim
on merits.
4. The Tahsildar by an order dated 13.11.2019 held
that he has jurisdiction to fix the boundaries of the land in
question in view of Section 61(1)(h) and Section 140 of the
Act. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in a
writ petition preferred by respondent No.3. The learned
single Judge by an order dated 01.10.2020 allowed the writ
petition and has inter alia held that Tahsildar has no
5
jurisdiction to fix the boundaries. The order passed by the
Tahsildar has been quashed. In the aforesaid factual
background this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that learned Single Judge erred in holding that
revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to fix the boundaries
in respect of land in question on the ground that the same is
situated within the limit of Municipal Corporation. It is also
urged that Section 61(2)(h) of the Act read with Section
140(2) of the Act empowers the Tahsildar to decide the issue
with regard to fixation of boundary. It is further submitted
that Tahsildar has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order
for fixing the boundary in respect of land in question. In
support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
on decision of this Court in
AND OTHERS VS. SMT. H.J.SHANKUNTHALAMMA', ILR
2007 KAR 5106.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional
Government Advocate submitted that the revenue authority
has jurisdiction to conduct the survey and to fix the
6
boundaries in respect of the land situated within the limits of
Municipal Corporation also. Learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.3 submitted that the lands in question are
converted and are situated within the limits of BBMP and
therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the
land in question as the same is not revenue Land. In support
of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on
division bench decision of this court in 'J.M.NARAYANA
AND OTHERS VS. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
BANGALORE, BY ITS COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
BANGALORE AND OTHERS', ILR 2005 KAR 60 and
decisions of learned Single Judges of this court in
'BASHEERKHAN vs. THE TAHSILDAR,
W.P.No..76164/2013, 'KIRLOSKAR ELECTRICAL CO.
PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER',
W.P.NO.105734/2016 and a full bench decision of this
court in 'SMT.JAYAMMA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE AND OTHERS', ILR 2020 KAR 1449.
7
7. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. The Act is an Act to
consolidate and amend the laws relating to land and land
revenue administration in the State of Karnataka. Section
2(12) of the Act, defines the expression 'holding', whereas,
Section 2(32) defines the expression 'survey number'.
Chapter VI of the Act deals with revenue jurisdiction. Section
60(a) which defines the expression 'land'. Section 2(12),
Section 2(32), Section 61(2)(h) and Section 140 of the Act
read as under:
( 12 ) “holding” means a portion of land
held by a holder
( 32 ) “survey number” means a portion of
land of which the area and assessment are
separately entered under an indicative number
in the land 1964: KAR. ACT 12] Land Revenue
463 records; and “sub-division of a survey
number” means a portion of a survey number
of which the area and assessment are
separately entered in the land records under an
indicative number subordinate to that of the
survey number of which it is a portion;
8
60
. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless
the context otherwise requires,—
a
( ) ‘land’ includes the sites of villages,
towns and cities, trees, growing crops and
grass, fruit upon, and juice in, trees, rights of
way, ferries and fisheries;
61
( ) Exclusive Jurisdiction of Revenue
Courts and bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts
1. xxxxx
2
.Subject to the exceptions hereinafter
specified, no Civil Court shall exercise
jurisdiction as to any of the following matters,
namely:-
(a)xxxx
(b) xxxx
© xxxxx
(d) xxxxx
(e) xxxxx
(f) xxxxx
(g)xxxxx
h
( ) claims regarding boundaries fixed under
this Act or under any other law for the time
being in force, or to set aside any order passed
by a competent officer under any such law with
regard to boundary marks or survey marks:
140
. Determination of boundaries of
lands forming a survey number or a holding.—
9
(1) At the time of a survey, the boundary
of a survey number, a sub-division of a survey
number or a holding,—
(a) if undisputed, shall be recorded and
marked as pointed out by the holder or person
in occupation, and
(b) if disputed, or if the holder or person
in occupation be not present, shall be fixed by
the Survey Officer, in accordance with the land
records relating to the land and after making
such inquiry as he considers necessary.
(2) If any dispute arises concerning the
boundary of a holding which has not been
surveyed, or if at any time after the completion
of a survey, a dispute arises concerning the
boundary of a survey number, a sub-division of
a survey number or a holding, the Tahsildar
shall decide the dispute having due regard to
the land records, if they afford satisfactory
evidence of the boundary previously fixed, and
if not, after such inquiry as he considers
necessary.
8. Section 2(12) of the Act defines the expression
‘holding’ to mean a portion of land held by a holder. Section
2(32) of the Act defines the ‘survey number’ to mean a
portion of land of which area and assessment are separately
10
entered in a indicative number in the land records. The
aforesaid expressions viz., ‘holding’ and ‘survey number’
have to be read with Section 140 of the Act, which provides
for determination of boundaries of land forming a survey
number or a holding. Thus, if at the time of survey, boundary
of any survey number or sub division of a survey number or
a holding is disputed, shall be fixed by survey officer in
accordance with the land records relating to the land and
after making such enquiry as he considers necessary. Section
140(2) of the Act provides that if any dispute arises
concerning the boundary of survey number or a sub division
of a survey number or a holding, the Tahsildar shall decide
the dispute having due regard to the land records. Thus, it is
evident that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Act has
power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a
holding. The aforesaid power can be exercised in respect of a
survey number or a holding irrespective of the fact whether
same is situated within the Municipal limits or outside the
municipal limits. Therefore, the order passed by the Tahsildar
dated 13.11.2019 inter alia holding that it has jurisdiction to
11
decide the matter pertaining to fixing the boundary of lands
forming survey number does not suffer from any infirmity.
9. The learned Single Judge has taken into account
Section 112-D of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,
which deals with power of Commissioner to survey lands and
buildings. The aforesaid Section reads as under:
112D. Survey of lands and buildings and
preparation of property register. - (1) The
Commissioner shall, subject to the general or
special orders of the Government, direct a
survey of buildings or lands or both within the
city with a view to the assessment of property
tax and may obtain the services of any qualified
person or agency for conducting such survey
and preparation of property register.
(2) A property register shall be
maintained in such manner and containing such
particulars in respect of buildings or lands or
both as specified in Schedule III.
(3) For the purpose of preparation of
property register or assessment of property tax
in respect of any buildings or lands or both, the
Commissioner or any person authorised by him
in this behalf may enter, inspect, survey or
measure any land or building after giving notice
12
to the owner or occupier before such inspection
and the owner or occupier shall be bound to
furnish necessary information required for the
purpose:
Provided that such entry into and upon
any building or land shall be made between
sunrise and sunset:
Provided further that in the case of
buildings used as human dwelling due regard
shall be paid to the social and religious customs
of the occupiers and no apartment in the actual
occupancy of a woman shall be entered until
she has been informed that she is at liberty to
withdraw and every reasonable facility has been
afforded to her for withdrawing]
10. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is
evident that the power has been conferred on the
Commissioner to direct survey of buildings or lands within
the city with a view to assessment of property tax. The
aforesaid provision has no bearing so far as the issue
involved in this case is concerned viz., whether Tahsildar has
jurisdiction to decide the matter pertaining to fixing the
boundary of lands forming survey number. The provisions of
the Act as well as Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act
13
operate in different fields and in any case, the scope and
ambit of the power under Section 140(2) of the Act cannot
be determined with reference to Section 112D of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, which even otherwise
has no bearing on the issue.
11. It is settled in law that judgments have not to be
read as Euclid’s theorems and their ration descideni has to be
determined with reference to the factual matrix in which the
case is decided. The reliance placed by the respondent No.3
on the decision of division bench of this court in
J.M.NARAYANA AND OTHERS VS. CORPORATION OF
CITY OF BANGALORE
supra is concerned, it is pertinent to
note that the division bench in the aforesaid case was
dealing with the issue of non payment of court fee on the
memo of appeal. In the aforesaid context, the division bench
of this court while dealing with the issue of valuation in
paragraph 5 held that if certain lands are included in the
Corporation limits are registered or used for cultivation
purposes would not imply that the land continues to pay land
revenue under the Land Revenue Act. It was further held that
14
Land Revenue Act would cease to be applicable no sooner the
land is brought within the limits of Corporation. The aforesaid
finding recorded by the division bench has to be understood
in the context in which it has been made namely for the
purpose of valuation of the land in context of payment of
court fee. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid decision does
not deal with the powers of Tahsildar under Section 140(2) of
the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid
decision is not an authority for the proposition that the
provisions of the Act do not apply to the land in question if it
is included in Municipal Limits. The aforesaid decision is
therefore, of no assistance to respondent No.3 in the facts of
the case. Similarly, the decision rendered by learnd Single
KIRLOSKAR ELECTRICALS CO. PVT. LTD
Judges in case of
and BASHEERKHAN
supra are of no assistance to the
SMT
respondent No.3. The decision of the full bench in
JAYMMA AND OTHERS SUPRA
is an authority for the
proposition that under Section 136(2) and (3) of Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, the revenue officials cannot decide the
question involving the title and possession. The aforesaid
15
decision has also no bearing on the issue involved in this
appeal.
In view of preceding analysis, the order passed by
learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the writ petition
filed by respondent No.3 is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS