The Karnataka High Court has said that instead of keeping a vigil over revenue land and ensuring timely collection of land revenue, the revenue authorities appear to be hand in glove with unscrupulous elements who form layouts on farmland illegally and sell them to gullible people.

“There is no coordination between the office of the sub-registrar, village panchayat, revenue officials and the Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps. The confusion has led to this chaotic situation in which illegal layouts on agricultural land are formed and sold while the State benefits by collecting stamp duty and registration charges through registration of instrument of conveyance of such properties,” the High Court observed.

Justice Ram Mohan Reddy made these observations while rejecting a petition, which had sought denotification of a site, the existence of which could not be ascertained from the sale deed registered in the office of the sub-registrar. Petitioner C. Chayadevi had sought denotification of her site bearing number 4, formed on 27 guntas of land that was carved out of 2 acres and 32 guntas of land in survey number 18/2, Gidadakonenahalli in Yeshwanthpur hobli, and acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority for further extension of its Sir M. Visvesvaraya Layout.

However, on verification of records, the court found that the survey number of the land on which the site was formed was not indicated in the sale deed, and the site claimed by her was a farmland and it had not been converted as per the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

Following these findings, the court observed that any instrument of conveyance of properties, particularly sites that cannot be indentified on record, has become a “menace” due to the “nexus between unscrupulous elements hand-in-glove with sub-registrars, who register any instruments if stamp duty and registration fees are paid.” In this case, the court said that the petitioner has become a victim at the hands of the vendor from whom she had purchased the site and the officers manning the sub-registrar’s office. Though the court dismissed the petition, it gave the liberty to the petitioner to sue the vendor and the officials of the gram panchayat who had issued certain records related to the land based on which deed of sale was registered, and seek damages from them as per law.

  • Court made the observation during a hearing plea on denotification of a site

  • Petitioner asked to sue the vendor, officials