In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26 th DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA W.P.67752/2011 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SOMASHEKARGOUDA S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL @ UDIKERI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: KAMALAPUR, BALAGI ONI, DHARWAD. TQ/DIST: DHARWAD. (AMONG THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED GRANDSON OF LATE FAKKIR GOUDA S/O RUDRAGOUDA UDIKERI @ PATIL) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M M HIREMATH, ADV.,) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT: DHARWAD. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD SUB-DIVISION, DHARWAD. 3. GURU S/O. GANGAPPA MESTRI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAIDAPUR, DHARWAD. : 2 : TQ/DIST: DHARWAD. 4. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. GANGAPPA MESTRI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O: GANGOTRI, JAYANAGAR, 1ST CROSS ROAD DHARWAD - 580 001. 5. SAVITRI W/O. RUDRAPPA MALLAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RAMARAJYA APARTMENT PLOT.NO.4 PLOT NO.9, BONOSALA MILITARY SCHOOL CORNER, ROAD NASIK - 5, SAMARTH NAGAR, (MAHARASTRA) STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 6. SHANTAWA W/O. SHIVANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SOMAWARPET, KITTUR, POST: KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 7. GANGAVVA W/O. ASHOK TALAWAI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SOMAWARPET, KITTUR, POST: KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 8. GOURAVVA W/O. RUDRAPPA DUGGANI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHEAGAW, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 9. SHAMBULINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA DANAPPANAVAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHEAGAW, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 10. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. BASAPPA DANAPPANAVAR, IS DEAD, REPTD., BY HIS LRS, : 3 : 10(A) AKKAMAHADEVI W/O. CHANABASAPPA DANAPPANAVAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHIVALLI PLOT, MRUTHUNJAYA NAGAR, DHARWAD. 10(B) KUMAR. SHIVAYOGI S/O. CHANNABASAPPA DANAPPANAVAR, AGE: 17 YEARS, MINOR REPTD., BY HIS MOTHER SMT. AKKAMADEVI (10.A) 10(C) KUMAR. BASAVARAJ, S/O. CHANNABASAPPA DANAPPANAVAR, AGE: 14 YEARS, MINOR REPTD., BY HIS MOTHER, SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI, (10.A) DARAMENDRA S/O. RAHUTAMAL JAIN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHANKARMATH ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 11. SHRI. H. SATISH S/O. H VENUGOPAL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: LECTURER, R/O: MALAYMBIKA PLOT NO.83, CHANNABASAVESHWAR NAGAR, DHARWAD. 12. MANJUNATH S/O. VIRUPAKSAGOUDA UDIKERI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: PLOT NO.20, SIDDESHWAR KRUPA, RAJATHGIRI, DHARWAD. 13. THE TAHASILDAR, DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C BELLAKKI, ADV., FOR R3, R9 AND R10a R10 (b) and R10(c) ARE MINORS REP. BY R10a, SRI. S.N.BANAKAR, ADV., FOR R11 AND R12 : 4 : SRI.RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1, 2 AND 14 R4 TO R8 AND R13 ARE SERVED) WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 05/04/2011 (ANNEXURE-D). THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 05.04.2011 made in RTS.RA.CR/14/2010- 11, the petitioner has preferred this present writ petition. 2. It is case of the petitioner that he has filed an appeal before the 2 nd respondent pertaining to the mutation entries made in M.R.No.252/03-04 dated 17.02.2014 in respect of land bearing RS No.45/1A+1A+1A/1A+1A+1A measuring 1 acre 13 guntas 3.5 anna out of which, half share in the middle portion measuring 25 guntas after sub division R.S. No.45/2 situated at Dharwad, Saptapur village. The 2 nd respondent by an order dated 24.06.2010 has allowed the appeal in part filed by the petitioner and remanded to the 14 th respondent-Tahasildar with a direction to : 5 : conduct enquiry and also to enter the name of the petitioner in the mutation entry. The respondent Nos.11 and 12 have filed the revision petition before the 1 st respondent-Deputy Commissioner who passed the impugned order, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, he is before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri.M.M.Hiremath learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and he has no right to decide in respect of the property in question and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, Sri.S.N.Banakar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.11 and 12 and the learned AGA for respondent No.1, 2 and 14 and Shivarahj C.Bellakki for respondent No.3, 9 : 6 : and 10(a) to (c) and Sri.Ravi V. Hosamani, learned AGA sought to justify the impugned order. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both the parties. 7. It is not disputed by both the learned Counsel for the parties that the Deputy Commissioner only recorded a finding that both the petitioner as well as the respondents are claiming their rights based on the registered sale deeds and the respondents have also claiming right in the land and assailing the validity of the GPA and also observed that the revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to go into the question of title and also validity or otherwise of the registered sale deed. From the perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it is seen that the Deputy Commissioner has taken cognizance of the fact that the rights have been acquired by means of a registered sale deed and still the Assistant Commissioner ventured into holding that the respondent No.1 is having interest in the land and his name should be entered into. The said order is not sustainable as the : 7 : revenue courts cannot be gone into the question of rights and interest in these summary proceedings. If anybody is aggrieved by the sale deeds, the same needs to be challenged before the competent civil Court. Therefore, he allowed the revision petition. 8. It is well settled principle of law that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the right, title and interest in respect of the immovable property between the private parties. Therefore, no exception can be taken in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner who only observed that aggrieved party has to approach the competent Civil Court and the same is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the same. However, it is made clear that aggrieved party has to approach the competent Civil Court and any judgment and decree to be passed by the competent civil Court in respect of the property in question between the parties will be binding on the parties and the revenue authorities has to act in accordance with the decree to be passed and in accordance : 8 : with Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. In view of the disposal of the main case, I.A. No.1/2015 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- JUDGE BS.