IN THE COURT OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AT CHICKKABALAPUR

PTCL (A) APPELLANT IKRAM PASHA VS /2011-12 RESPONDENTS MUNIRAJU & DEVARAJU

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT:This case is an appeal over the orders of PTCL 18/2006-07 dated 31-01-2011 on the file of Assistant Commissioner Chickkabalapur. The PTCL 18/2006-07 case was filed by respondents on 23-06-2006 by a bald petition stating following points. 1. They claim to be grandsons of Chickkagangappa s/o Satyappa & Sontamma w/o Chickkagangappa. 2. They claim to belong to schedule caste. 3. They claim to have got the land granted vide LND 2379/74-75 dated 17-03-1981. 4. They claim the land 3-00 acres each in survey number 10/46 and 10/47 in Balajigapade grama. 5. They claim that one Muniyappa, Nanjappa, Shivappa sons of Chickkagangappa have sold the above land without their knowledge. 6. They claim that there is 20 year non alienation period and within that period sale has been made violating sale condition. 7. They claim that through Register no. 870/96-97 dated 26-06-1996 after violating grant condition have sold granted land. 8. The documents annexed in support of the petition are the following a. RTC of survey number 10/p31 khatha number 85 and MR No. 23/96-97. Dated 22-06-2006. b. RTC of survey number 10/p30 khatha number 20 and MR No. 9/2004-05. Dated 22-06-2006. c. Caste certificate dated 16-06-2006 given to Devaraja s/o Nanjappa for taking loan. d. Caste Certificate dated 15-06-2006 given to Muniraju s/o Muniyappa. e. Grant Certificate copy in the name of one Gangappa s/o Satyappa dated 17-03-1981 , Survey number: 10, Block number 50, vide

LND No. 2379/74-75 dated 29-10-1977, DR no. 1827/1980-81 extent 3 acres 02 guntas including 0-02 guntas of put kharab. 15 years non alienation condition f. RTC for the year 1995-96 for Survey number 10/46 dated 22-071996. g. MR 31/91-92 dated 23-02-1995 for survey number 10/46. h. Grant Certificate copy in the name of Sontamma w/o Chickkagangappa dated 17-03-1981 , Survey number: 10, Block number 47, vide LND No. 2379/74-75 dated 29-10-1977, DR no. 1826/1980-81 extent 3 acres 00 guntas, 15 years non alienation condition. i. Copy of G-Tree (Vamshavruksha) of one Chickkagangappa as stated by Muniyappa dated 06-10-2005 The respondent in that case and appellant herein has taken the following stand in his statement. 1. The petitioners claims are totally denied. 2. The petitioners are denied to be grand children of original grantees. 3. The vamshavruksha and the caste certificate are claimed as false fabricated concocted and created for the purpose of filing false petition. 4. Sale Transaction referred to in claimed to as ‘it does not violated any grant condition’. 5. Land originally granted to one Sri Chikkagangappa s/o Satyappa measuring 3 acres as per order dated 29-10-1977 vide no. 2379/7475. 6. The sale took place after period of 15 years from the grant time.

DISPUTED FACTS:1. Petitioners relationship with grantee’s are disputed. 2. Grantee’s caste is not accepted as from depressed class. PTCL provisions hence not attracted. 3. Grant condition violation disputed.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:1. Does the land granted for scheduled caste or scheduled tribe person. 2. Does the land granted for upset price or free grant. 3. Does the land grant contain 20 years non alienation period as claimed. 4. Does the documents relied by petitioner are genuine and reliable. 5. Does the petition is maintainable in the present form. 6. Does the petitioner approached court in time for relief. 7. Does the petitioner has approached court with clean hands. Inspite of bringing the above facts to the notice of Assistant commissioner, he has overlooked the above contentions in the impunged order. THE FOLLOWING LEGAL DEFECTS AND DRAWBACKS WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WHILE PRONOUNCING HIS ORDER, INSPITE OF BRINGING MATTERS INTO HIS CONSIDERATION BY WAY OF WRITTEN ARGUMENTS:1. No piece of document is placed by respondents before the lower court to show that original grantee beloged to SC or ST. In the case of Abdul Haq Shamshuddin Saheb v. Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar and Ors., befor Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Reported in 2002(5) Kar. L.J. 109 held that “To invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act it must be shown that the land was granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe only on that count and not otherwise. This is more so, since like the provisions of the Land Reforms Act any person belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or even higher class can claim grant of occupancy right and, if he shows compliance with the necessary conditions, he is entitled for such conferment of occupancy rights or grant of the land. At that stage, it is not necessary that he should belong to a particular caste or community.” 2. The petitioners in lower court has produced a concocted document of one Gangappa s/o Satyappa claiming it as Chikkagangappa s/o Satyappa. It shows respondents are unsure about their claimed ancestors reality. It shows they are ignorant of their claimed

ancestor. Whether Gangappa or Chickkagangappa is the contrary things which is not explained by respondents in lower court and the said fact also being neglected by the lower court in its order. They speak one thing in petition, they produce documents which speak other things. Pleadings and proof wont tally in their case. The basic rule of law of pleadings is, that a party can only succeed according to what he has alleged and proved, otherwise, on the principle of 'secundum allegata at et probata' a party is not allowed to succeed, where he has not set up the case which he wants to substantiate. This rule that pleadings and proof must correspond, rests upon the principle that no party should be prejudiced by being taken by surprise by varying the case as originally set up. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward. The true scope of this rule is that evidence let in on issues on which the parties actually went to trial should not be made the foundation for decision of another and different issue, which was not present to the minds of the parties and on which they had no opportunity of adducing evidence. In C.N. Nagendra Singh vs The Special Deputy Commissioner And Ors. (ILR 2002 KAR 2750) The Honble High court of Karnataka Held that : “The decision of the Revenue Courts has to be necessarily based on the undisputed facts.” Inspite of bringing the above decisions to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by High Courts and Supreme court. In addition iam bringing to your kind attention the principle of law as elicited in G. Jagadish And Anr. vs B.S. Ganesha Rao ILR 1998 KAR 1067 bonafides of the parties…….” 3. Survey number 10/46 is a granted land and the grant is made on 29-10-1977 vide LND 2379/74-75 and the possession is given on 17-03-1981, the sale is made by heirs of grantee on 28-06-1996 that is after 15 years 3 months 11 days. The sale is a registered sale. Even if any one has been effected by such sale it should have been questioned within 3 years as per Article 137 of Limitation act. In Kamlesh Babu & Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma & Ors 2008 (6) SCR “The variation between the pleadings and proof assumes importance in appreciating the

653 It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence. Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma AIR 1997 SC 282. The Apex Court has laid down the law that the time limit of three years prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to any application filed under any Act. Janardhanam Prasad vs Ramdas 2007 (2 ) SCR 151 Possession of the suit land by the appellant also stands admitted. Registration of a document as well as possession would constitute notice, as is evident from Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is in the following terms : "...."a person is said to have notice" of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it………… Explanaion I. Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration………. In the decision in Smt Dilboo vs. Smt Dhanraji AIR 2000 SC 3146 , the Apex Court has held that “whenever a document is registered, the date of registration acts as the date of deemed knowledge. In other cases, when a fact could be discovered by due diligence, then deemed knowledge could be attributed to the plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge.” Inspite of bringing the above decisions to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by Supreme court. 4. However the respondents have not placed a piece of paper

showing they are the descendants of original grantees. IN a case of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RADHA KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. AIR 1983 SC 684 it was observed on G-TREE as follows “The principles governing such cases are: (i) Genealogies admitted or proved to be old and relied on in previous cases are doubtless relevant and in some cases may

even be conclusive of the facts proved, but there are several considerations which must be kept in mind viz.: (a) Source of the genealogy and its dependability. (b) Admissibility of the genealogy under the Evidence Act. (c) A proper use in decisions or judgments on which reliance is placed. (d) Age of genealogies. (e) Litigations where such genealogies have been accepted or rejected. (2) On the question of admissibility the following tests must be adopted: (a) The genealogies of the families concerned must fall within the fourcorners of s. 32(5) or s. 13 of the Evidence Act. (b) They must not be hit by the doctrine of post litem motam. (c) The genealogies or the claims cannot be proved by recitals, depositions or facts narrated in the judgment which have been held by a long course of decisions to be inadmissible. (d) Where genealogy is proved by oral evidence, the said evidence must clearly show special means of knowledge disclosing the exact source, time and the circumstances under which the knowledge is acquired, and this must be clearly and conclusively proved.” Inspite of bringing the above decisions to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by Supreme court. 5. Later created documents to suit their false claims does not disclose anything about the original grantee. Neither the caste certificate of respondent discloses that the caste of grantee is same as that of petitioner. IN a case of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RADHA KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. AIR 1983 SC 684 it was observed as follows: “Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value, quite another: a document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and weight or its probative value may be nil. It is also well settled that statements or declarations before persons of competent knowledge made ante litem motam are receivable to prove ancient rights of a public or general nature. The admissibility of such declarations is, however, considerably weakened if it pertains not to public rights but to purely private rights. It is equally well settled that declarations or statements made post litem motam would not be admissible because in cases or proceedings taken or declarations made ante litem motam, the element of bias and concoction is eliminated. Before, however, the

statements of the nature mentioned above can be admissible as being ante litem motam they must not only be before the actual existence of any controversy, but should be made even before the commencement of legal proceedings. This position however cannot hold good of statements made post litem motam which would be clearly inadmissible in evidence. The reason for this rule seems to be that after a dispute has begun or a legal proceeding is about to commence, the possibility of bias, concoction or putting up false pleas cannot be ruled out.” Inspite of bringing the above decisions to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by and Supreme court. 6. Only the oldest un-disputed documents like any declaration of grantee about his caste during his life time can be best piece of evidence which discloses the caste of original grantee. In the absence of such piece of evidence, it cannot be assumed or presumed in any manner. IN a case of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RADHA KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. AIR 1983 SC 684 it is observed as follows: “In considering the oral evidence regarding a pedigree a purely mathematical approach cannot be made because where a long line of descent has to be proved spreading over a century, it is' obvious that the witnesses who are examined to depose to the genealogy would have to depend on their special means of knowledge which may have come to them through their ancestors but, at the same time, there is great risk and a serious danger involved in relying solely on the evidence of witness given from pure memory because the witness who are interested normally have a tendency to draw more from their imagination or turn and twist the facts which they may have heard from their ancestors in order to help the parties for whom they are deposing. The court, must therefore safeguard that the evidence of such witness may not be accepted as it is based purely on imagination or an imaginary or illusory source of information rather than special means of knowledge as required by law. The oral testimony or the witness on this matter is bound to be hearsay and their evidence is admissible as an exception to the general rule where hearsay evidence is not admissible. In the appreciation of evidence of such witnesses,

the principles to be borne in mind are: (1) The relationship or the connection however close it may be, which the witness bears to the persons whose pedigree is sought to be deposed by him. (2) The nature and character of the special means of knowledge through which the witness has come to know about the pedigree. (3) The interested nature of the witness concerned. (4) The precaution which must be taken to rule out any false statement made by the witness post litem motam or one which is derived not by means of special knowledge but purely from his imagination, and (5) The evidence of the witness must be substantially corroborated as far as time and memory admit.” Inspite of bringing the above decisions to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by Supreme court. 7. Moreover petitioner of lower court and present respondents falsely claims that the non-alienation period is 20 years. This is fraudulent misrepresentation and abuse of process of court. The fraud upon party is also fraud upon court which needs serious condemnation. In Arunima Baruah vs Union of India & Ors 2007 (6) scc 120 “It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands.” Inspite of bringing the above decisions to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by Supreme court.

8. Although both survey numbers (10/46 & 10/47) are mentioned in the application/Petition of lower court. Only the sale deed with Registration no. 870/96-97 is being challenged by the petitioner of lower court. The sale deed covers only Survey number 10/46 , later number 10/p25 and present survey number 158. The revenue records produced by petitioner in lower court is that of 10/p31(RTC), 10/p30(RTC), 10/50(GRANT CERTIFICATE), 10/47(GRANT CERTIFICATE), which are irrelevant records, the rest of the records does not prove any aspects. The claims made by petitioner himself under great suspicious mode and hence liable to be dismissed. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court the observations of Supreme court in THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER V. T.SURYACHANDRA RAO, [(2005) 6 SCC 149], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: " "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio.” Inspite of bringing the above decisions to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by Supreme court. 9. It can be seen that for survey number 10/46 and 10/47 a persons by name one Narayanaswamy & Manjunatha , claiming to be grandsons of one Ramappa s/o Satyappa and kadaramma w/o Ramappa claims to have been grantee’s of the same land vide PTCL

17/06-07 before lower Hon’ble court. The versions of both the petitions can be compared there is no difference in any words except that of parties names and challenged sale deed number. Filing date is same. This shows some collusive attempt by both these parties. In these days it is on increase of the habits of several impersonating/fictitious people to misuse the law and court process with false and misleading representations for their personal gains through blackmailing tactics and settlements. Justice SreedharRao of Karnataka High Court in Pennaiah And Ors. vs Thippamma AIR 2004 Kant 444 has held that “When the documents of title relied on by the plaintiff does not correspond with the suit schedule property and in the absence of necessary pleading and proof, the appellate Court was wrong in declaring the title of the plaintiff. May be that the defendant has not proved title of his vendor, but, nonetheless the defendant is held to be in possession of the suit property, when the plaintiff has failed to prove title, he would not be entitled to relief of possession irrespective of the valid title of the defendant. In that view of the matter; the appreciation of facts and evidence and the inference drawn is perverse and contrary to law and evidence on record.” Inspite of bringing the above decisions to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by Karnataka High Court. 10. The petition in lower court was not filed as per the Rule

applicable. Despite this appellants objections and despite representation by learned advocate on behalf of petitioners side in lower court, petitioners of lower court failed to comply the rule of law. On this count petition is liable to be dismissed, but there is no whisper as to this aspect by lower court in its order. Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Rules 1979 were to be followed before issuing notice to alienee. But in this case such rule has not been followed. The non following of such rules itself shows petitioners have not approached court with clean hands and they have exercised fraud on the authority by filing an incomplete petition which is violative of rules. LAW CLARIFICATION:- The Karnataka Government circular dated 25-06-1983 vide Circular Number RD 31

LGP 83 With a Subject of Implementation of High Court Order dated 10-1-1983. In W.P.Nos. 10674, 10710, 14026, 16439. 18842, 22387, 23024 OF 1980, 3250, 17567 and 17568 of 1981 16663 and 17101 to 17103 of 1982 – Suggestions made by the Division Bench, regarding the smooth and proper implementation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978 – It has been brought to the notice of Government that a large number of alieness that had received show cause notices from the Assistant commissioners of the areas or the orders made by them, challenged the validity of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1978, the show cause notices or the orders there to made against them. The petitioners against whom final orders have been made by the respective Assistant Commissioners have challenged the Act and the orders made against them. It is also pointed out that in most of the cases the show cause notices issued to the alienees the Assistant Commissioners do not set out any of the details required by the Rules. Before issuing the show cause notices to the alienees, it is proper for the Assistant Commissioners to collect all such information as they can and clearly set out all the grounds on which the alienation is proposed to be annuled, so that the alienee can satisfactorily state his case also before the authority. The show cause notice must be a selfcontained one, giving grounds for proceedings against the alienee the nature of violation of the provisions of Law and the purpose for which the notice is issued and to show cause why the sale transaction should not be held void. The notice should also contain pattadar, the conditions attached to it and the violations of the conditions in this sale, should be specifically mentioned so that a reasonable opportunity would have been given to the alienee to explain his position his position in clear terms………………..”. Inspite of bringing the above circular to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by government circular. 11. The petition in lower court was accompanied by Xerox copies of several documents. Those documents not only reliable and petitioner of lower court made no effort to summon original documents. Lapse on the part of petitioner in lower court to follow

the law of land does not entitle him for any relief. This basic law is overlooked in impunged order. The Xerox copy of documents submitted by petitioners in lower court show that one Gangappa’s land in plot number 10/50 document is produced to claim land in plot 10/46. The person Gangappa s/o Satyappa is different from Chickkagangappa s/o satyappa. LAW CLARIFICATION:Government of Karnataka vide its circular dated 31-05-1990 in Circular number: RD 97 LGP 90 have specifically directed not to accept photostat copies of documents presented by the private parties to take important decisions, without verifying the originals to satisfy as to the authenticity of the document. The circular says like this “It has come to the notice of Government, that the field level Officers coming under the control of Revenue Department, like Stamps and Registration Department, Survey Settlement and Land Records Department, Muzrai and wakf Department and other departments are accepting photostat copies of documents presented by the private parties and are taking important decisions, without verifying the originals to satisfy as to the authenticity of the document. Subsequent investigation has revealed that most of the documents were bogus and created by the parties. This practice is generally noticed in registering the Revenue Sites round about Bangalore City. This has to be stopped forthwith as otherwise parties would evade the legal provisions with impunity and also may result in heavy loss of the revenue to Government. It is, therefore, instructed that the photostat copies of the document is not a legal evidence and should not be accepted in any proceedings unless parties produce simultaneously the original thereof. The Officer accepting these documents satisfy himself after verifying the original as to the authnenticity and put a certificate to that effect on the photostat copy of the document. This procedure should be followed scruplously. Any lapse in following this procedure will be viewed seriously and make officer responsible for the misdeed.” Inspite of bringing the above circular to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by government circular.

12. The Karnataka Government circular dated 16-08-1995 in Circular No: RD 97 LGP 84 says that “The Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners are directed to follow the given instructions scrupulously while deciding such cases by quoting Supreme court decision. The Supreme Court while upholding the validity of the Act has made following observations, namely:- "Though we have come to the conclusion that the Act is valid, yet, in our opinion, we have to make certain aspects clear. Granted lands which had been transferred after the expiry of the period of prohibition do not come within the purview of the Act, and cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Act make this position clear, as Ss. 4 and 5 become applicable only when granted lands are transferred in breach of the condition relating to prohibition on transfer of such granted lands. Granted lands transferred before the commencement of the Act and not in contravention of prohibition on transfer are clearly beyond the scope and purview of the present Act. Also in case where granted lands had been transferred before the commencement of the Act in violation the condition regarding prohibition on such transfer and the transferee who had initially acquired only a voidable title in such granted lands had perfected his title in the granted lands by prescription by long and continuous enjoyment thereof in accordance with law before the commencement of the Act, such granted lands would also not come within the purview of the present Act, as the title of such transferees to the granted lands has been perfected before the commencement of the Act. Since at the date of the commencement of the Act the title of such transferees had ceased to be voidable by reason of acquisition of prescriptive rights on account of long and continued user for the requisite period, the title of such transferees could not be rendered void by virtue of the provisions of the Act without violating the constitutional guarantee. We must, therefore, read down the provisions of the Act by holding that the Act will apply to transfers of granted lands made in breach of the condition imposing prohibition on transfer of granted lands only in those cases where the title acquired by the transferee was still voidable at the date of the commencement of the Act and had not lost its defeasible character at the date when the Act came into force. Transferees of granted lands and not having a perfected and not a

voidable title at the commencement of the Act must be held to be outside the pale of the provisions of the Act. S.4 of the Act must be so construed as not to have the effect of rendering void the title of any transferee which was not voidable at the date of the commencement of the Act". Inspite of bringing the above circular to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by government circular. 13. PETITIONER IN LOWER COURT HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE FOLLOWING RULE : Under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979. Rule 3(1) to (3) says
3. Resumption and restitution of granted lands:(1) Every application by any interested person under section 5 shall be in form-I. (2) On receipt of an application or information under sub-section (1) of section 5, the Assistant Commissioner may direct the applicant or informant, as the case may be, to furnish such further particulars or information as may be required and fix a date for furnishing the same. (3) After receipt of the particulars or information if any, called for under sub:- rule (2), the Assistant Commissioner shall, by a notice in form II, require the person or persons in possession of the granted land to file objections, to the claim with documentary evidence, if any, within such reasonable time, as the assistant Commissioner may think fit in the circumstances of the case. FORM I [See rule 3 (2)] APPLICATION 1. Name of the applicant (grantee) with full address. 2. Nature of the land. i.e., garden or wet or dry with assessment. Extent 3. Details of the land. Village/ Survey Taluk Numbers Acres Guntas 4. Name (s) of the purchaser or exchanger or mortgager or leasee etc. as the case may be, (with full address). 5. Nature of acquiring the Land by the grantee (i.e. Either granted under Dhar- kast rules or other special Rules with Order No. and Date of sanction) 6. Total amount for which the Granted land has been Disposed and particulars of the registered document, if any. 7. Brief reasons for the disposal. 8. Any other relevent information in support of the claim.

14. Filing petition with fabricated documents is condemned by High court of Karnataka in serious words. In Cyril D'Souza vs Ponkra Mugera And Others 1998 (1) KarLJ 659, Justice H N Tilhari “This writ petition has got no merits and it, in my opinion should be dismissed with a note of caution to the members of the Bar and the Counsel of the petitioner as well, that in future, the Counsels should be very cautious in drafting, filing the petitions, affidavit etc. and see that the parties do not file writ petitions etc. with purged and forged documents, otherwise, they may have to face the serious consequences. Instead, this petition appears to be an attempt of the petitioner to procure some order from the Court on the basis of an agreement which prima facie appears to be an ante-dated document prepared after that date and it prima facie shows that a false document has been filed with false allegations, because if petitioner would have been in possession, penalty would have been realised from him, the allegations in the petition that the petitioner had been in possession and the date of grant also appears to be false. Filing a false affidavit and filing forged document, as per law laid down by the Supreme Court is nothing but an act illegal, interfering with the proper administration of justice and it prima facie makes out a case for contempt.” Inspite of bringing the above decisions to the knowledge of Assistant commissioner he has not taken it into consideration thereby committed willful disregard to the law laid down by Karnataka High Court. 15. The above stated objections are already taken by way of written arguments before the lower court. But lower court has shown utter disrespect towards the law laid down by courts. It amounts to contempt of court also. Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India,
the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be having binding effect on all Courts within the territory of India. From a bare reading of Article 141 of the Constitution, what is to be noted is that the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts within the territory of India. The emphasis has to be laid down on the words 'the law declared'. It is well settled that it is only 'the law declared' and not the result, which is having binding precedent.

16. Another important fact which is being neglected by lower court is the way this appellant purchased the land and the time of its purchase. The appellant was a NRI during the period before purchase of lands. The Governments at state and centre invited NRI’s to invest their money within India. Due to such invitation this appellant cross checked the records of lands and found that Government has issued Form-I as a land grant certificate which is for general category. The representation made by government regarding its land records is quite clear for long decade and the conditions imposed upon such certificate is also not have been violated by this appellant. The present case is also based upon such document. The Government and its authorities are estopped to raise contrary versions at this stage. To substantiate the points the following decision is brought to the kind attention of appellate court. . John B. James And Others vs Bangalore Development Authority And Another ILR 2000 KAR 4134, 2001 (1) KarLJ 364 Bench: R Raveendran, V Sabhahit Claims based on the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' also require reliance on representations and resulting detriment to the claimant, in the same way as claims based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The doctrine can be invoked if the decision which is challenged in the Court has some person aggrieved, either by altering rights or obligations of that person, which are enforceable by or against him in private law or by depriving him of some benefit or advantage, which either (i) he had in the past being permitted by the decision maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision maker that it will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that it should not be withdrawn. The Government and its departments, in administering the affairs of the country are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse or discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural justice. …………….. Lastly, it is also necessary to notice the position of a trespasser who is in

peaceful, open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of another's property, in denial of the title of the true owner, for a long period. Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that at the determination of the period limited under that Act, to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished. Article 65 provides the period of limitation for a suit for possession of immovable property based on title as twelve years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Article 112 provides the period of limitation for such a suit, if filed by or on behalf of the Central Government, or State Government is thirty years instead of twelve years. Article 112 will not however apply to BDA as it is neither the State nor Central Government. ……………………. In Nair Service Society's case, supra, the Supreme Court quoted with approved the following passage from Perry v Clissold: "It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provision of the statute of limitation applicable to the case, his right is forever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title". 17. The following point of law has also not been considered by lower court. Karewwa And Ors. vs Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri And Ors AIR 2002 SC 504, “ …presumption of correctness of an entry in revenue record cannot be rebutted by a statement in the written statement. Mere statement of fact in the written statement is not a rebuttal of presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record. The respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record in the year 1973 and under law the presumption is that the entry is correct. It was for the appellant to rebut the presumption by leading evidence. The appellant has not led any evidence to show that entry in the revenue record is Incorrect.”

18. . The following point of law has also not been considered by lower court. State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products, AIR

1996 SC 149 as follows: ". . . . All that we wish to emphasise is that anything and everything done by the promisee on the faith of the representation does not necessarily amount to altering his position so as to preclude the promisor from resiling from his representation. If equity demands that the promisor is allowed to resile and the promisee is compensated appropriately, that ought to be done. If, however, equity demands, in the light of the things done by the promisee on the faith of the representation, that the promisor should be precluded from resiling and that he should be held fast to his representation, that should be done. To repeat, it is a matter of holding the scales even between the parties to do justice between them. This is the equity implicit in the doctrine. ... To wit, the rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard and fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. If it is more just from the point of view of both promisor and promisee that the latter is compensated appropriately and allow the promisor to go back on his promise, that should be done; but if the Court is of the opinion that the interests of justice and equity demand that the promisor should not be allowed to resile from his representation in the facts and circumstances of that case, it will do so. This, in our respectful opinion, is the proper way of understanding the words "promisee altering his position". Altering his position should mean such alteration in the position of the promisee as it makes it appear to the Court that holding the promisor to his representation is necessary to do justice between the parties...."
19. The following point of law has also not been considered by lower court. Banhatti Co-Operative Spinning ... vs Karnataka Electricity Board ILR 1990 KAR 3518 “It is relevant to notice that a claim may be barred by time but nevertheless it does not disappear nor it is extinguished. In the event the claim is barred by time, all that happens is that such a claim cannot be enforced in a Court of Law by way of a suit or other proceeding to which the Limitation Act applies. The expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for a suit to recover the amount due, does not destroy the right to the amount. It only bars the remedy. Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 only provides that at the determination of the prescribed period of limitation limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished.”

Wherefore the Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow the appeal and setaside lower court order and dismiss the petition of petitioner as not maintainable in view of legal points as elicited above.

Date Place: Chickkaballapur

Advocate for Appellant

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.