Bengaluru: In a relief for state govt and Siddaganga mutt of Tumakuru, the Karnataka high court has set aside an order of a single bench on over 14 acres of land in Bengaluru north taluk.A division bench, comprising Justices DK Singh and TM Nadaf, noted that the batch of petitioners who succeeded before the single bench had in fact engineered documents to show that the land had been granted by the govt on Oct 11, 1982, thereby playing a fraud on the court.The mutt claimed that the govt granted 14 acres 25 guntas at Kadaranahalli, Dasanapura hobli, in Aug 2010 for setting up a Dasoha Prasada Centre and added that the grant certificate produced by the petitioners was fake.On the other hand, petitioners Manjesh and others argued that in 1982, the land had been granted to them by the special deputy commissioner. They also argued that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) could not have dismissed their claim.The single bench not only set aside the order passed by KAT but also opined that the mutt had failed to show that the grant certificate produced by Manjesh was fake. The decision in 2018 forced the mutt and the govt to file separate writ appeals.The HC division bench pointed out that even before KAT, the claim of the petitioners considered their request for ‘saguvali chit’ (grant certificate), and the report of the revenue authorities indicated that the subject land was vacant.The division bench pointed out that with the entry of one Manjesh, the created grant certificate came into existence and the same is fraudulent.“We would have considered the case of the petitioners by means of a direction to the respondent state to consider their applications filed in 1981, if the petitioners had maintained their stand as had been taken before the KAT and this court at the first instance. But the fact remains that the petitioners have started engineering the record, thereby created record, as if there was a grant order… This, for us, clearly indicates that there are certain unseen hands working behind the scene to engulf the property belonging to the state, which is not permissible in law,” the division bench observed.“Such acts of the parties defrauding the court require to be dealt with iron hands,” it said.“But for the reason that the petitioners are villagers and looking at their financial status, we refrain ourselves from imposing any costs though the facts and circumstances demand the same,” the division bench noted while allowing the writ appeals.
