Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
A. Basavarajappa vs The Village Accountant, … on 24 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 (6) KarLJ 496
Bench: R Gururajan


ORDER

1. This is an unusual petition placed before this Court for grant of a relief of a direction to implement an alleged order alleged to have been made by the Tahsildar dated 29-1-1996 bearing No. RRTCR 147(A)78-79.

2. The facts in brief as mentioned in the writ petition are as under:

The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring No. 64/2 measuring 4 acres and 14 guntas situated at Nittuvalli Village, Taluk Davangere. According to the petitioner a competent Civil Court declared him to be the owner of these lands in O.S. No. 83 of 1991 vide order dated 25-11-1995. Petitioner seems to have approached the Tahsildar, Davangere in the matter of implementation of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. According to him he requested the Tahsildar to enter his name in the concerned record of rights and also in the cultivators column. The further averments are that the Tahsildar in response to the representation made by the petitioner passed an order on 29-1-1996 ordering entering of the name of the petitioner in the cultivators and owners column of the concerned revenue records. Copy of the order of Tahsildar is at Annexure-A. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of an order of Tahsildar the Village Accountant who is subordinate to the officer has failed to comply with the order of the Tahsildar. Hence he has filed this writ petition for a direction to the Village Accountant for implementing the order of the Tahsildar. This Court issued notice to the learned Government Advocate and further passed an order ordering as to why costs should not be imposed for non-compliance of the order by Village Accountant. Thereafter several orders have been passed from time to time by this Court to which I would be referring at a later stage.

3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court the State entered appearance and filed a detailed counter and in the counter-affidavit respondent stated that no such order (Annexure-A) was passed by the Tahsildar. The order alleged to have been passed by the Tahsildar is bogus. Hence the same cannot be relied upon, is the contention in the counter filed by the Government. They further allege that the said document at Annexure-A is a fabricated one. Subsequently KEB filed an impleading application to implead KEB in the petition. KEB was impleaded as respondent 3. KEB has filed its counter statement, and it has narrated several litigations initiated for and against the petitioner and adverted to all the details in the counter filed by it before this Court. They have also filed Annexure-R2, an endorsement dated 20-12-1997 issued by the Tahsildar in respect of the very same matter.

4. In view of the serious controversy with regard to the genuineness of Annexure-A, this Court on 21-7-1999 ordered that the petitioner be present before this Court on 6-8-1999. Petitioner was also directed to file an affidavit in this regard. This Court also ordered petitioner shall be present in the Court along with original of Annexure-A. Pursuant to the order of this Court an additional affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating that original of Annexure-A has been sent to Village Accountant on 17-7-1997 as per letter dated 17-7-1997 along with a copy of writ petition in this regard. After noticing the affidavit this Court passed an order ordering the Tahsildar who was working on the relevant date to file an affidavit. Subsequently another affidavit was filed by the Government in which it is stated that the Tahsildar who was working on the relevant date is dead and the alleged order said to have been passed by the Tahsildar is not found in the file maintained by the revenue office.

5. These are the relevant facts that are necessary for disposing of this petition.

6. The petitioner, as I see from the facts placed before this Court is a regular Court bird and it cannot be said that the petitioner is not aware of the Court proceedings.

7. Admittedly original of Annexure-A is not forthcoming in terms of the directions of this Court. On the other hand an explanation is offered for non-production of Annexure-A by the petitioner. The said explanation is that the said original of the Annexure-A was produced before the Village Accountant along with the writ petition copy on 17-7-1997. The said explanation prima facie is not acceptable to me. Petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance of non-implementation of the order of the Tahsildar on 4-7-1997 by the Village Accountant. This Court directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice on 7-7-1997 in the present proceedings. That being the position on facts, it is ununderstandable to me as to why the petitioner after approaching this Court on 4-7-1997 thought it fit to send not only a copy of the petition but also the original order of Annexure-A on 17-7-1997. This explanation to my mind to say the least is not tenable to me. Moreover a responsible officer of the revenue department has filed an affidavit stating that no such order was passed by the Tahsildar and there was no need for the Tahsildar to pass such order on the facts of the case.

8. In the light of these materials placed before me and in view of the doubtful character of Annexure-A, I am clearly of the view that no reliance could be placed on Annexure-A. A writ relief is purely discretionary in nature. Unless the Court is satisfied about the genuineness of an order, no directions to implement can be given particularly when the very existence of the order is doubted by the Court. It is not safe for this Court to issue a direction to the Village Accountant to act on a doubtful order at Annexure-A. In the circumstances I refuse to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the doubtful character of the document. In the circumstances I refuse to grant the only prayer sought for by the petitioner on the peculiar facts of this case.

9. In the normal circumstances I would have closed my order with the above observations, but in the light of the development of this case I deem it proper, particularly in the light of the order of my learned brother on 16-8-1999, to direct the COD to investigate in this case to find out as to whether Annexure-A is a genuine document or not. The COD is further directed to investigate as to who is responsible for this order at Annexure-A. It is needless for me to say that in the event of COD coming to a conclusion that the said order at Annexure-A is not genuine order then the petitioner is to be proceeded against for an action in accordance with law. On the other hand if COD finds that the said document is genuine then it is open to the petitioner to seek such further relief as is necessary in the matter. It is open to COD to get all necessary assistance from the KPTCL and Government authorities if it so desires.

10. Writ petition is rejected with the above observations without any order as to costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

28 queries in 0.229 seconds.