N.K. Patil, J.@mdashThe appellants herein, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 32766/2009 (KLR-RR/SUR) dated 12th November 2009, have presented this writ appeal. In the said writ petition, the appellants herein had sought for quashing the order dated 2nd July 2009 in Regular Appeal No. 24/2006-07 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure A and consequently orders dated 24th November 2003 dated 19th December 2006 at Annexures B and C to the writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as being devoid of merits. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have presented this appeal seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated above.
2. Brief facts of the case in hand are that, the appellants have contended that the husband of the first appellant and the father of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 herein, i.e. deceased K.M. Gopalappa had filed the application for grant of land measuring an extent of 02 acres in Sy. No. 31/16 in Korla halli Village, Shimoga Taluk. The said application was considered by the third respondent - Tahsildar, Shimoga Taluk and granted the land by his order dated 15th February 1980 bearing No. LND.SR.636/1978-79. Thereafter, Grant Certificate (Saguvali Chit) was also issued to the deceased K.M. Gopalappa on 27th July 1980 to that effect. Further, it is the case of the appellants that, during the lifetime of late Gopalappa, the said land has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of himself and his family members and he has been cultivating the said land till his death. After the death of deceased Gopalappa, the said property has been succeeded by all these appellants, being his legal representatives.
3. Be that as it may, taking undue advantage of the fact that the deceased Gopalappa was a handicapped person, respondents 3 to 15 and some other inhabitants of the said village encroached some portion of the land and by force constructed residential buildings therein. At that stage, deceased Gopalappa had filed civil suit against the encroachers. The respondent Nos. 3 to 15 and other encroachers and other inhabitants of the locality made a complaint before the Tahsildar, the third respondent herein, stating that the original grantee, late K.M. Gopalappa had sold the granted land within the prohibition period contrary to the terms and conditions of land grant. After receipt of the complaint, the third respondent initiated the proceedings in proceedings No. LND(2)VIVA 334/2001-02, after issuing notice and giving opportunity to deceased K.M. Gopalappa and these appellants and after obtaining the report from the Revenue Inspector, who was in-charge of the village, passed the order, holding that the deceased K.M. Gopalappa has suppressed the material fact that, he was in employment in the Sugar Factory and getting substantial salary and also he was an holder of agricultural land to an extent of 04 acres 38 guntas and accordingly, cancelled the grant, by his order dated 24th November 2003. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the third respondent, the original grantee, i.e. deceased K.M. Gopalappa filed an appeal before the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, in Regular Appeal No. 21/2003-04 and the second respondent, in turn, after considering the entire material available on file and after affording opportunity to the parties, through their counsel dismissed the appeal filed by the original grantee, deceased K.M. Gopalappa, confirming the order passed by the third respondent, by his order dated 19th December 2006. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, dated 19th December 2006, deceased K.M. Gopalappa filed an appeal in R.A. No. 24/2006-07 on the file of the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District. Shimoga.
4. The said matter had come up for construction before the first respondent on 2nd July 2009 and the first respondent, in turn, after going through the order passed by the third respondent - Tahsildar and the order passed by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner and after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after perusal of the entire material available on record, has held that the grant made by the competent authority is on the basis of a claim made by the deceased K.M. Gopalappa, which is not genuine and therefore, the authority has got every right to cancel the same when it has come to the knowledge of the authority, on the basis of the complaint, that the grant has been obtained by making false claim. Accordingly, by invoking Rule 25 of the Karnataka Grant Rules, has cancelled the grant made in favour of deceased K.M. Gopalappa and resumed the granted land to the authority which granted and confirmed order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. All the three authorities, i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar have recorded a concurrent finding of fact on the basis of the report submitted by the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector and other relevant material on record that, it establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased K.M. Gopalappa was an employee of the Sugar Factory and his income was more than the prescribed limit and his holding was more than 04 acres 38 guntas of agricultural land. Therefore, the grant made by making false declaration and misrepresentation has been cancelled.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by all the three authorities, i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the appellants herein, being the legal representatives of original grantee, deceased K.M. Gopalappa filed Writ Petition No. 32766/2009. The said matter had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 12th November 2009. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both parties through their counsel and after perusal of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land grant Rules and also the terms and conditions of the same, dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of merits. Being further aggrieved by the orders passed by all the three authorities, viz. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have presented this writ appeal, seeking appropriate reliefs stated supra.
6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellants, at the outset is that, the orders passed by all the three authorities, i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and also the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are liable to be vitiated at the threshold, on the ground that, neither all the three authorities nor the learned Single Judge has considered the fact that the proceedings has been initiated on the basis of the complaint made by some encroachers, that too after lapse of more than three decades and encroachment is valid in so far as it relates to 20 guntas of land and the said matter is pending adjudication before the Civil Court. But, unfortunately the grant made in respect of entire extent in favour of deceased K.M. Gopalappa, succeeded by these appellants has been cancelled without conducting proper enquiry as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules and the appellants have been in possession. Further, he submitted that, in fact, the entire holding of agricultural land measuring 04 acres 38 guntas is joint family property and succeeded by them and only one acre 20 guntas was held by him, as on the date of filing the application and that his income was less than the prescribed limit in the conditions of grant. The appellants have not suppressed any material or misrepresented for obtaining grant of land. The grant has been made on two counts, one he is eligible for grant on the basis of not holding excess land and that the income is less than the prescribed ceiling limit by the authority under the Rules. Therefore, the authorities are not justified in initiating the proceedings, that too after lapse of several decades and cancelling the grant made in favour of the person who is not alive now, cannot be justifiable and is liable to be set aside and the prayer sought for by the appellants in the writ petition impugned may be granted as prayed for.
7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondents, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned orders passed by all the authorities, i.e. respondents 1, 2 and 3 and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, stating that the same are passed after critical evaluation of the entire material available on records and after perusal of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules and other relevant material available on file. All the three authorities and also the learned Single Judge have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the appellants and hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.
8. However, he is quick to point out and submit that if the land has been granted on the basis of the application filed by the applicant on false or fraudulent information made in the application, then there is no limitation period as such prescribed and such claim can be set aside or cancelled at any time immediately after it has come to the knowledge of the jurisdictional competent authority. To substantiate his submission, he pointed out that the order passed by the third respondent - Tahsildar, produced vide Annexure B, ink page. 47, paragraph 2, wherein the said authority has specifically recorded a finding that, the original grantee, deceased K.M. Gopalappa is working in Tungabhadra Sugar Factory, getting substantial income of Rs. 20,000/- per month and owning agricultural land measuring an extent of more than 04 acres 38 guntas. Further, the said original grantee, without taking prior permission has changed the nature of land, i.e. converted the agricultural land into non-agricultural land, without getting the same converted from the competent authority, made the revenue sites and sold to several persons and that, it is the case of respondents 3 to 15 that they are the agreement holders cum unauthorized occupants.
9. It is the specific case of respondents 3 to 15 that they have filed application for regularization of unauthorized construction in time and the same has been considered by the Regularization Committee and in view of widening of roads, some of the constructed portion have been even demolished and they have even received the compensation.
10. Further, he specifically submitted that, several other persons have put up construction in the suit schedule land and are residing there as the nature of land has been changed from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose and that other encroachers have not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings in the writ petitions. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by these appellants and interference in the same is not called for.
11. To substantiate their stand, they have placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
12. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for all the parties, perusal of the grounds urged in the instant writ appeal and also the orders passed by all the three authorities, i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and also the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is manifest on the face of the orders passed by all the three authorities and also the learned Single Judge that, there is no error or material irregularity, resulting in any miscarriage of justice inasmuch as all the three authorities, i.e. respondents 1, 2 and 3 have, after conducting due enquiry, as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties and after obtaining the report from the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector and after thorough verification about the status of late K.M. Gopalappa in consonance with the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, that he was employed in the Tungabhadra Sugar Factory, have passed the said orders. It is significant to note that the said report has been submitted in 2001 and at that time, he was drawing salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month and the same is not in dispute. Further, it emerges from the finding recorded by the third respondent - Tahsildar in his order dated 24th November 2003 vide Annexure B that, the original grantee, deceased K.M. Gopalappa was working as an employee at Tungabhadra Sugar Factory and also holding agricultural land to an extent of more than 04 acres 38 guntas, above the prescribed ceiling limit and therefore, he is not eligible for grant of land under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. On both counts, he is not eligible for grant of land in question under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules.
13. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for respondents, the land has been granted in favour of late K.M. Gopalappa for cultivation of the lands to eke his livelihood. But, before the expiry of the prohibition period, without taking necessary permission from the competent authority, has changed the nature of land, formed revenue sites and entered into alleged agreement of sale in respect of respondents 3 to 15 and some others and they, in turn, have constructed residential buildings and staying with their families and some of the buildings belonging to respondents 3 to 15 have even been demolished for widening the roads and they have even received compensation from the concerned authorities and other persons who have purchased the sites, constructed the house and residing there and whose rights are accrued are not party to the proceedings. The nature of the land has been changed from agricultural to non-agricultural one, without taking prior permission or conversion order from the competent authority.
14. Further, it is worthwhile to extract the relevant provision of Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, which reads thus:
Rule 25. Cancellation of grant:- (1) Any grant of land made under these rules shall be liable to be cancelled and the land resumed by the authority which granted it, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations or is contrary to these rules:
Provided that no such cancellation shall be made without giving the grantee an opportunity of being heard.
(2) Where any violation of the condition of grant or lease of land comes or is brought to the notice of a Revenue Officer, such officer shall forthwith report the violation to the officer competent to cancel the grant or lease as the case may be. The competent officer shall after giving the grantee or lessee an opportunity to be heard cancel the grant and resume the land to the Government free from all encumbrances.
(emphasis supplied by us)
In the case on hand, it can be seen that, indisputably, the original grantee had filed the application seeking grant of land measuring an extent of 02 acres under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, on the ground that he is a landless person. The said basis/ground on which he has filed the application is false and proved to be a fraudulent one, on the basis of the report submitted by the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector. On the other hand, it clearly reveals in fact that, the original grantee, deceased K.M. Gopalappa was an employee at Tungabhadra Sugar Factory, getting salary of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month and also a holder of agricultural land measuring an extent of more than 04 acres 38 guntas, much above the prescribed ceiling limit, on the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, in the year 2001. Therefore, it proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the application filed by original grantee is on a false ground and the same was rightly cancelled by the competent authority and confirmed subsequently by all the appellate authorities. It can further be seen that all the three authorities have given ample opportunity of hearing to all the parties before passing the orders and particularly, the appellants have been heard before cancelling the grant made in favour of K.M. Gopalappa. The very purpose of the provisions of Land Grant Rules would be defeated if applications of such fraudulent nature are entertained. Whenever a person wants to claim grant of land under the Land Grant Rules, he or she must come with clean hands, stating the true facts before the authority as otherwise the very aim and object of the very Act and Rules would be defeated.
15. Further, it could be seen that, admittedly, there is gross violation of the provision of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules also, inasmuch as there is violation of the conditions of grant of land as the original grantee has changed the nature of land from agricultural to non-agricultural one, made revenue sites, without prior permission from the competent authority and sold them within the prohibitory period, contrary to the conditions of grant. Accordingly, on coming to know of the same, the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector has conducted due investigation and submitted the report to the competent authority and the competent authority, in turn, has rightly cancelled the grant made in favour of the original grantee, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to him. We do not find any arbitrariness or illegality in the same.
16. Further, it can be seen time and again that, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has been holding that, the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and one who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands and persons whose case is based on falsehood, have no right to approach the Court and can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. It is worthwhile to extract the relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of
Para. 7. "The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
(underlining by us)
17. It is not in dispute that, the original grantee obtained the land measuring 02 acres by playing fraud on the Government. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. The original grantee was indisputably an employee in the Tungabhadra Sugar Factory, getting substantial income and also owing agricultural land measuring 04 acres 38 guntas, which is evident from the report submitted by the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector. Without disclosing these vital aspects, he has filed the application seeking grant of land as a landless person before the competent authority, which amounts to fraud not only on the Court but the opposite party also. Such false and frivolous applications, seeking false claim can be cancelled at any stage, when it has come to the knowledge of the authority. Therefore, in the case on hand, immediately after it came to the knowledge, on the basis of the report submitted by the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector, the competent authority, has cancelled the grant made in favour of the original grantee, after affording reasonable opportunity to him.
18. Further, it can be seen that, in the instant case, the appellants have not uttered or whispered a word regarding the truth while filing the writ petition either in the facts or in the grounds of the memorandum or writ petition as to on what basis the original grantee had filed the claim for grant of land, much less the fact that he was employed in Tungabhadra Sugar Factory and extent of land held by him. Nothing is forthcoming from the memorandum of appeal also. This is nothing but misleading, misrepresenting and obtaining land by making false claim, in a fraudulent manner. In this case, the third respondent, after due enquiry as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Act and Rules, on the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, is justified in recording a finding of fact against the appellants and the same has been rightly confirmed, by assigning valid reasons by the appellate authorities, viz. respondents 1 and 2 and the same has been subsequently rightly confirmed by the learned Single Judge by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The reasoning given by all the three authorities and also the learned Single Judge is well considered and well founded. Hence, in view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the three authorities and confirmed by the learned Single Judge, interference by this Court in the same is uncalled for, in view of the well settled laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions nor the appellants have produced any clinching material to reverse the said finding.
19. Further, regarding the submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellants that the authorities are not justified in invoking the provision of Rule 25 of Land Grant Rules for cancelling the grant made in favour of original grantee after lapse of 23 years is concerned, it can be seen that there is no limitation period as such prescribed under the Rules and it can be cancelled at any stage and at any time, once it has come to the knowledge of the authorities and is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the grant has been obtained on false pretext or fraudulent representation, as held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in catena of decisions including the one extracted above, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed that, persons whose case is based on falsehood, have no right to approach the Court and can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. Therefore, delay of 23 years does not come to the rescue of the appellants in defending their case. Having regard to the totality of the case and the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by appellants stand dismissed as being devoid of merits.
