Pattandur Agrahara land: Karnataka HC dismisses state petition challenging land tribunal order

In a setback to the state government, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition filed by the state government challenging the Bengaluru South Taluk Land Tribunal’s order passed in 1980 relating to certain pieces of land located at Pattandur Agrahara in KR Puram Hobli. The Revenue Department, in this petition filed in 2018, had claimed the land as lake-bed area and encroached upon some documents tampered with.

In its order December 27, 1980, the Land Tribunal had passed an order re-granting 11 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy No 54 at Pattandur Agrahara in favour of H B Munivenkatappa (since dead and represented by his legal representatives). The state argued that the land in question forms part of “Kere Angala” or tank bed and therefore, the Land Tribunal could not have conferred occupancy rights or could not have re-granted the lands. Namma Whitefield Residents Welfare Association Federation, an NGO, also supported the state government in this petition. The association submitted that a public property in the nature of a water tank should not be permitted to be usurped.

On the other hand, the counsel for Munivenkatappa’s representatives argued that the lower appellate court, after a thorough inquiry regarding the application filed by Munivenkatappa in Form Number 7, under Section 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act, and the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, had negated the contention that the land in question is part of “tank bed”. It was further argued that in Pattandur Agrahara village there were only two tanks or water bodies, as found in the revenue records, and they are in survey number 85 and 124 of Pattandur Agrahara village.

After perusing the materials on record, Justice R Devdas noted that the lower appellate court had found that the encumbrance certificates reveal sale deeds executed in respect of the land in question commencing from the year 1927 and that the survey records never recorded the existence of water tank or tank bed.

“These facts reveal that at no point of time the revenue authorities or the State raised any question on the sale transactions and maintenance of the revenue records in favour of the purchasers, on the ground that the land is part of a tank bed. Further, the lower appellate court has found from the records that in Sy.No.54 survey sketches are available from the year 1958 and it was never recorded as a water tank,” Justice Devdas said.

The court further observed that there is a delay of 20 years in filing the petition after the decision of the lower appellate court (civil court).  “The decision of the lower appellate court was rendered on 17.12.2008. Even otherwise, there is a delay of nearly 20 years in filing this writ petition, raising a challenge to the order of the Land Tribunal dated 27.12.1980, from the date of the judgment of the lower appellate court. Moreover, the State and its authorities have taken a chance in preferring Regular Second Appeal before this court and by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. If this writ petition is entertained, it would amount to affording a second chance to the petitioner-State and its authorities to re-agitate the same issue. As reiterated again and again, the law of limitation is applicable to the State like any other person and no exception can be carved out for the State.”