Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) Of Karnataka Land Revenue Act Has Power To Determine Boundary Of A Survey Number Or A Holding: Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while setting aside a single judge bench order dated October 1, 20202 said, "Section 140(2) of the Act provides that if any dispute arises concerning the boundary of survey number or a sub division of a survey number or a holding, the Tahsildar shall decide the dispute having due regard to the land records. Thus, it is evident that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding."

Case Background:

The appellant Sunil Chajed has assailed the validity of the order by which the writ petition preferred by respondent No.3 Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited has been allowed and the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Tahsildar under the Section 140(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been quashed.

It is the case of the appellant that he is the owner of land measuring 1 acre and 4.08 guntas. The authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 took possession of the land in question. The appellant challenged the order passed by the authorities under the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which by an order dated 07.03.1998 directed restoration of land to the appellant. In compliance with the order passed by the tribunal, the name of the appellant was restored in the revenue records.

The appellant filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.3 from interfering with the peaceful possession in respect of land in question. Even though the land was restored in favour of the appellant, it was not possible to identify the boundary of the land in question and therefore, the appellant made an application to the Deputy Commissioner to fix the boundaries, which was forwarded to the Tahsildar.

The Tahsildar thereupon initiated proceedings and issued notice to respondent No.3 and others and thereafter passed an order on 22.02.2019 directing the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bangalore East Taluk to take steps to fix the boundaries of the land in question.

This order was challenged by the respondent in the High Court which came to be allowed. The court remitted the matter to the Tahsildar to examine the issue with regard to jurisdiction and thereafter to proceed to adjudicate the claim on merits.

The Tahsildar by an order dated 13.11.2019 held that he had jurisdiction to fix the boundaries of the land in question in view of Section 61(1)(h) and Section 140 of the Act. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in a writ petition preferred by respondent No.3. The learned single Judge by an order dated 01.10.2020 allowed the writ petition and has inter alia held that Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to fix the boundaries. The order passed by theTahsildar has been quashed.

Petitioners arguments:

It was said the Single Judge erred in holding that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to fix the boundaries in respect of land in question on the ground that the same is situated within the limit of Municipal Corporation. It is also urged that Section 61(2)(h) of the Act read with Section 140(2) of the Act empowers the Tahsildar to decide the issue with regard to fixation of boundary.

Reliance was placed on the High Court judgement in the case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. SMT. H.J.SHANKUNTHALAMMA', ILR 2007 KAR 5106.

Respondents submissions:

Counsel for the company claimed that the lands in question are converted and are situated within the limits of BBMP and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the land in question as the same is not revenue Land.

Court findings:

On going through the relevant provisions the bench said, "The learned Single Judge has taken into account Section 112-D of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, which deals with power of Commissioner to survey lands and buildings."

It added, "From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the power has been conferred on the Commissioner to direct survey of buildings or lands within the city with a view to assessment of property tax. The aforesaid provision has no bearing so far as the issue involved in this case is concerned viz., whether Tahsildar has jurisdiction to decide the matter pertaining to fixing the boundary of lands forming survey number."

Following which it held, "The provisions of the Act as well as Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act operate in different fields and in any case, the scope and ambit of the power under Section 140(2) of the Act cannot be determined with reference to Section 112D of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, which even otherwise has no bearing on the issue."

Following which the court allowed the appeal and set aside the single judge bench order.

Case Title: Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka

Case No: WA 468/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

Appearance: Senior Advocate Uday Holla a/w Advocate K Vijaya Kumar for appellant

Advocate S Rajashekhar for R1-R2

Senior Advocate K Arun Kumar a/w Advocate M V Sundararaman for R3