Survey authorities may demarcate alleged Government ‘B’ Kharab land without adjudicating title.

Sri Krishnadevaraya Educational Trust challenged notices dated 17 April 2023 issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Yelahanka, proposing a survey and demarcation of 33 acres and 33 guntas in Sy.No.45 of Nellukunte Village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk.

The Trust claimed title under six sale deeds executed by Smt. Saraswathamma Balekai, asserting an aggregate purchase of approximately 133/140 acres in the survey number.

The private respondents claimed rights over 33 acres and 33 guntas, relying on a settlement deed dated 28 November 1961 and applications in Form No.4 under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977.

The learned Single Judge held that the dispute involved questions of title which could not be decided by survey authorities, quashed the notices, and left the parties to pursue remedies before the competent forum.

The State authorities appealed, contending that the Trust had encroached upon Government land classified as ‘B’ Kharab and that the survey was only an identification exercise.

Whether the notices issued for surveying and demarcating the land were without jurisdiction because the parties disputed title over Sy.No.45.

Whether the survey authorities could identify and demarcate the alleged 33 acres and 33 guntas of ‘B’ Kharab Government land without adjudicating the parties’ title.

Whether the Trust could claim title over an extent exceeding the 101 acres and 37 guntas settled in favour of its vendor, particularly where the additional land was recorded as ‘B’ Kharab.

The Court applied Rule 21(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, distinguishing ‘A’ Kharab land, which may form part of a private holding, from ‘B’ Kharab land, which belongs to the Government and is reserved for public purposes.

Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 declares lands not belonging to private persons, including public lands and other specified categories, to be Government property and provides a mechanism for formal inquiry and determination of claims against the State.

‘B’ Kharab land cannot be privately conveyed, and a transferee cannot obtain a better title than that possessed by the transferor.

Revenue entries and mutation records do not, by themselves, confer or establish title.

A survey or demarcation undertaken to ascertain the physical and revenue position is not an adjudication of title and does not extinguish any party’s substantive rights.

The settlement deed conveyed only 101 acres and 37 guntas in Sy.No.45 to Smt. Saraswathamma; consequently, her power to alienate could not exceed that extent.

The RTC showed the survey number as measuring 133 acres and 33 guntas, including 31 acres and 36 guntas classified as ‘B’ Kharab.

Therefore, the Trust could not establish title over the additional Government land merely through sale deeds or subsequent mutation entries.

The Court held that the proposed survey was not intended to decide ownership but to identify the land, ascertain the alleged encroachment, and assist the competent authority in considering the respondents’ applications under the 1977 Act.

Preventing the survey would leave the alleged encroachment and the status of Government land unverified.

Since all concerned parties could produce documents and raise objections, the notices were held not to be without jurisdiction.

The notices were restored, with directions to the authorities to issue fresh notice to the Trust and all concerned parties, consider their documents and objections, conduct the survey, and demarcate the 101 acres and 37 guntas settled in favour of Smt. Saraswathamma as well as identify the further 33 acres and 33 guntas claimed as ‘B’ Kharab land.

A proper sketch was to be prepared, and upon identification, appropriate revenue entries were to be made classifying the land as ‘B’ Kharab Government land.

The exercise was to be completed within three months, without prejudice to the parties’ right to establish title before the competent forum.

The State was further directed to protect the identified land, refrain from allotting or alienating it to any private or commercial entity, and use it only for legally permissible public purposes.