Karnataka High Court
Shri Shivayogi S/O Gurushiddappa Benni vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769
WP No. 103404 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.103404 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SHIVAYOGI
S/O GURUSHIDDAPPA BENNI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MADIHAL MAIN ROAD,
DHARWAD-580006,
TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SMT. LALITA
W/O SHIVAYOGI BENNI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MADIHAL MAIN ROAD,
DHARWAD-580006,
TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BHARATHI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HM
REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
DEPT. OF REVENUE,
BENCH
Date: 2024.07.06 12:15:08
+0530 VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
AND SURVEY SETTLEMENT, DHARWAD-580001,
DIST: DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDL. GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769
WP No. 103404 of 2024
A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED: 11/03/2024 BRG
NO.NaMa/II/Vardi/VaHi/246/2023-24 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
VIDE ANNEXURE-L, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
B) ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTION BY DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN
THE PROPERTY REGISTER CARD/REVENUE ENTRIES PURSUANT TO
SALE DEED VIDE ANNEXURE-K IN RESPECT OF LAND BRG
CTS.NO.191/MD MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 268 SQ.YARDS
(224.07 SQ.MTRS) SITUATED AT MADIHAL, DHARWAD IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the land bearing CTS No.191/MD measuring to an extent of 268 sq.yards situated at Madihal, Dharwad, belonging to one Muralidhar S/o.Krishnacharya Shurpali and on 09.04.2009 the aforesaid Muralidhar through power of attorney holder executed a gift deed in favour of Shri Laxmi Narasimha Devara Trust Committee, Madihal and the name of the said Trust came to be entered in the encumbrance certificate. Thereafter the registered trust through its meeting has unanimously decided to sell the land in question in favour of -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769 WP No. 103404 of 2024 the petitioners as they were in need of funds for performance of objects of the trust and therefore they executed an agreement of sale and the sale deed pursuant to the said resolution dated 22.05.2022. The sale deed came to be executed on 22.12.2023 in favour of the petitioners by the trust which is produced at Annexure-K. Before purchasing the property, the petitioners had obtained bank loan and also made a paper publication with regard to purchase of the said property belonging to the trust. Thereafter since none objected, no claim was made, registered sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners.
3. The petitioners pursuant to the registered sale deed made application to enter their names in the property extract card before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 by order issued an endorsement stating that the petitioners have to obtain orders of the Court before execution of the sale deed and in view of the non providing of documents, rejected the application filed by the petitioners to enter their names in the property extract. It is this action of respondent No.2 which is questioned by the petitioners. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769 WP No. 103404 of 2024
4. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that once the petitioners have purchased the property by virtue of a registered sale deed, from the erstwhile owner/trust, who was the valid owner of the property and having made an application to the respondent for change of revenue entries in the land records, it becomes the duty of the respondent to verify the registered sale deed document and enter the names of the petitioners who are the registered owners by virtue of a registered sale deed.
5. This aspect is seriously controverted and objected by learned Addl. Government Advocate by contending that there are powers vested with the respondent ADLR to enquire into the title and if it is right as provided under Rule 83 of City Survey Manual, which contemplates enquiry into titles, rights, etc., of building sites and the lands, the area of which is determined under section 152 which is surveyed under sub-rules (1) and (2) of this rules, shall be enquired into by the Survey Officer or any other officer appointed by the State Government.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769 WP No. 103404 of 2024
6. Learned counsel for respondent also sustains the order passed by respondent No.2 on the ground there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the order passed by respondent No.2 seeking for verification of documents and titles for the purpose of entering the names of petitioner. Therefore, he sustains the order passed by respondent No.2.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Addl. Government Advocate.
8. Section 128 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 contemplates the entries for the acquisition of rights to be reported. Any person acquiring right of ownership by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, any right as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof to make an application to the prescribed officer of the village within three months to make an entry in the record of rights. Further proviso to section 128 contemplates that any person acquiring right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the prescribed -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769 WP No. 103404 of 2024 officer. The law is well settled in view of the provisions of section 128(4) that when there is a registered sale deed, the obligation is cast upon the officer to report to the prescribed officer with regard to the registration of instrument based on which there need not be any application for change of entry in the record of rights as it is exempted in the second proviso to section 128(1) of the Act.
9. This being the case, the petitioner made an application to respondent to change the entries in the record of rights on the basis of the registered sale deed which is rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that he needs some more documents to verify title and other records to enter the names. I am afraid such powers are not vested with respondent No.2 to reject or call for any further documents when there is a registered document of sale deed in favour of the petitioners. He is duty bound and an obligation is cast upon him by virtue of second proviso to section 128(1) to register the entries in the record of rights as per the registered sale deed/instrument. There is no provision for respondent No.2 to call for any further records -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769 WP No. 103404 of 2024 to enquire into antecedents/veracity of the title to enter the names of the registered owner in the record of rights. This view is supported by a Full Bench judgment in the case of Smt.Jayamma and others vs. the State of Karnataka and others, reported in AIR 2020 (NOC) 862 (KAR). Therefore, in view of the above discussions, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsement dated 11.03.2024 issued by respondent No.2, vide Annexure-L is hereby quashed.
iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.2 to enter the names of the petitioners in the property register card, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE MRK CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32