Karnataka HC upholds cancellation of land entries after finding alleged grants of government land unsupported by official records

The petitioners challenged orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner cancelling mutation and consequential revenue entries relating to lands in Sy. No. 80, Shettigere Village.

The petitioners claimed rights through grants allegedly made on 12 October 1979 to them and their family members, or to their predecessors, and relied on sale deeds, revenue records and copies of grant documents.

Earlier suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, had been dropped in 2005; later proceedings resulted in the impugned orders.

Whether the Special Deputy Commissioner could exercise suo motu powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to examine the disputed revenue entries and the basis for the claimed grants.

Whether the alleged grants and consequential revenue entries could be sustained when the claimed grants were unsupported by original or contemporaneous records and appeared to exceed the Tahsildar’s authority under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969.

Whether the Special Deputy Commissioner’s orders warranted interference for want of jurisdiction, proper record verification or reasoned satisfaction.

Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, empowers the Deputy Commissioner to call for and examine records of rights and decide the matter in accordance with law.

Under Rules 6 and 7 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, land grants are governed by prescribed priorities and limits on the powers of revenue officers; where a proposed grant exceeds an officer’s authority, the matter must be dealt with through the procedure, including Government consideration or sanction, prescribed by the Rules.

In M. Manjegowda v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that where the grant sought exceeds the authority conferred on subordinate revenue officers, the matter must be placed before the Government under Rule 7(v).

The Court also relied on W.S. Insulators of India Ltd. v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka concerning the Deputy Commissioner’s suo motu powers, and on Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Mackinnon Employees Union for the principle that a statutory authority must follow the procedure prescribed by statute.

The Court found that the petitioners had produced no original grant orders or contemporaneous departmental records to substantiate the alleged grants.

The Special Deputy Commissioner had obtained and examined records from the relevant revenue offices and land-record authorities, which did not disclose the claimed grants for Sy. No. 80; the grant reference identified in the records related instead to Sy. No. 90 of Tarahunase Village.

The Court also considered that the land available for disposal was recorded as only 13 acres and 7 guntas, whereas the alleged grants in Sy. No. 80 totalled 32 acres, including grants to several members of the same family on the same date.

Applying Rule 7 and M. Manjegowda, it concluded that the alleged grants exceeded the Tahsildar’s authority and lacked the required Government sanction or supporting records.

It therefore rejected the challenges to the Deputy Commissioner’s jurisdiction and the adequacy of the decision-making process.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.