High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR WA No.17886/2011 (KLR - RES) BETWEEN : SRI B RAMU S/O.SRI PANDURANGA SHEREGAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O.ALAK HOUSE OF BIJOOR VILLAGE BAINDOOR HOBLI, KUNDAPURA TQ UDUPI DISTRICT. APPELLANT ( By Sri. R A DEVANAND, ADV.) AND : 1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BAINDOOR, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 2 SMT JYOTHI W/O.RAMA POOJARI R/O.UPPUNDA VILLAGE, KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 2 3 SRI CHANDRA S/O.SUBBARADDI RAMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O.UPPUNDA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 4 SRI KUPPAIAH S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O.UPPUNDA VILLAGE, KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS ( By Smt.H C NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.7692/2011(KLR-RES) DATED 25/08/2011. This writ appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this day, DILIP B BHOSALE J, delivered the following: PC: This writ appeal is arising from the application filed before the Tahsildar under Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short `Act') pertaining to the entry in the record of rights in respect of Sy.No.41/10A1d2 situated at Uppunda village, Baindoor Hobli, Kundapura 3 Taluk, Udupi District. The appellant claims that he has purchased this property by a registered sale deed from one Subbaradi Ramu son of late Lakshmi Hengsu. When we expressed that we will not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in view of the nature of proceedings, learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the observation made by the Tahsildar in the order dated 29.11.2010, wherein the Tahsildar observed that the sale deed is incomplete and invalid. He submits that this observation of the Tahsildar, being a Revenue Authority, is without jurisdiction. He further submits that the appellant intends to initiate an appropriate proceedings for redressal of his grievance and therefore, he submits that if any such proceedings are initiated by the appellant, the observation made by the Tahsildar in respect of the sale deed should not come in their way. 2. Having considered the nature of controversy and the 4 observation made by the Tahsildar in the proceedings arising out of the application filed by the appellant under Section 129 of the Act, we are satisfied that this appeal need not be entertained and can be conveniently disposed of by the following: ORDER It is open to the appellant to take appropriate remedy including institution of a civil suit for appropriate relief on the basis of the sale deed dated 16.6.2010. If any such proceedings are initiated by the appellant, the same may be considered and decided on merits in accordance with law and after allowing the parties to lead evidence to prove the sale deed. We hope and trust that the Appellate Authority under Section 136(2) of the Act or learned Judge in civil suit, as the case may be, shall deal with the proceedings uninfluenced by the observation made by the Tahsildar in respect of the sale deed, which we are of the view, are without jurisdiction. 5 With this observation, the appeal is disposed of. Since we have not entertained the appeal, applications filed by the appellant also stand disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE bkm..

Load more