Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from land in Sy.No.45 of Nellukunte Village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. Sri Krishnadevaraya Educational Trust claimed title to nearly 140 acres in Sy.No.45 through six sale deeds executed by Smt. Saraswathamma Balekai, who had claimed rights under a settlement deed dated 28.11.1961 from Sri Krishna Rao L. Balekai. The private respondents contended that Smt. Saraswathamma was settled only 101 acres 37 guntas and therefore could not have conveyed more than that extent; they had entered into an agreement of sale dated 22.12.2022 for 33 acres 33 guntas and filed applications in Form No.4 under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 seeking occupancy rights. The Assistant Director of Land Records issued notices dated 17.04.2023 proposing a survey of Sy.No.45 to identify and measure 33 acres 33 guntas, allegedly at the instance of the private respondents. The Trust challenged those notices in W.P. No.9668/2023. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 29.02.2024 and quashed the notices. The Single Judge found that private respondents had not established any subsisting right, title, or interest in the land from existing records; that the question whether Smt. Saraswathamma had authority to convey more than 101 acres 37 guntas was a disputed question of title for a civil court; and that the applications under the Act of 1977 had not even been considered by the competent authority, so the private respondents could not independently approach the survey authorities at that stage. The Single Judge permitted the petitioner to file objections and required hearing before any order, and clarified that if the competent authority later found identification necessary, directions could be issued in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the State revenue officials filed the present intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The appellants contended that the Trust had encroached approximately 20 acres 7 guntas and that the encroached portion was taken back on 24.12.2016; that a spot inspection by Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector had recorded encroachment; that a survey sketch had been prepared; and that the Trust suppressed these material facts before the Single Judge. They argued the writ petition was premature because no final decision had been taken on the notices, and that a survey by itself would not confer or extinguish rights. The appellants further submitted that the Trust could not claim more than the settled extent of 101 acres 37 guntas and was attempting to obstruct regularization proceedings and assert claim over Government land. The Trust and private respondents reiterated their respective stands on title and the need for identification. The court framed the question whether the Single Judge's order called for interference. The available text then discusses the meaning of Kharab land under Rule 21(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, distinguishing A Kharab land, which can be consolidated and transformed with owners having property-related rights, from B Kharab land, which belongs to the Government and cannot be converted by a private party, being used for public purposes. The text ends mid-discussion and does not record the final operative order. Consequently, the final decision in the appeal is not available from the provided judgment text.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Survey Authority Jurisdiction - Disputed Title Cannot Be Adjudicated by Survey or Revenue Authorities - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 - The petitioner trust claimed nearly 140 acres in Sy.No.45 through six sale deeds executed by Smt. Saraswathamma, while private respondents contended that Smt. Saraswathamma was settled only 101 acres 37 guntas. The learned Single Judge held that the validity of the sale deeds and authority to convey excess extent raised a disputed question of title, which revenue or survey and settlement authorities could not adjudicate. Held that the private respondents, if so advised, would have to approach competent civil court for a declaration regarding validity of the sale deeds (Paras 7-8). B) Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 - Occupancy Rights Applications and Pre-Survey Notices - Survey Only If Competent Authority Finds Identification Necessary - Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 - Private respondents filed applications in Form No.4 claiming occupancy rights over 33 acres 33 guntas and sought survey by Assistant Director of Land Records. The Single Judge observed that applications had not been considered by competent authority, so private respondents could not independently approach survey authorities at that stage. Held that if competent authority later finds identification necessary, appropriate directions may be issued in accordance with law and petitioner must be heard before any order (Paras 6-8). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Survey Notice - Prematurity and Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Appellants argued writ petition was premature as no final decision had been taken on notices, while petitioner contended notices were issued without jurisdiction based on disputed claim. The appellate court framed question whether Single Judge's order calls for interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction and what order would serve ends of justice. No final conclusion on this issue is recorded in the available text; the judgment text ends while discussing Kharab land definitions (Para 12). D) Land Revenue - Kharab Land Classification - A Kharab and B Kharab Government Ownership - Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 Rule 21(2)(i)-(ii); Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Sections 67, 71 - Rule 21(2)(i) defines A Kharab land as buildings unsuitable for farming at time of surveys, which can be consolidated and transformed, with land owners possessing property-related rights for land revenue. Rule 21(2)(ii) defines B Kharab land as belonging to government and cannot be converted by private party, used for public purposes such as burial grounds, parks, footpaths, tanks and streams. Held that Karnataka Government has ownership and authority over such lands and can use Kharab land for public purpose (Paras 13-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its intra-court appellate jurisdiction and if so, what order would serve the ends of justice.
Law Points
- Disputed title cannot be adjudicated by revenue or survey authorities
- only civil court can declare validity of sale deeds
- survey notices for identification may be issued when competent authority under Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act
- 1977 finds necessary and after hearing
- A Kharab land can be consolidated and transformed with owners having property rights
- B Kharab land belongs to government and cannot be converted by private party
- writ petition against survey notice may be maintainable if notice issued without jurisdiction
- intra-court appeal under Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act
