Karnataka High Court
Tryambakeshwar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 5 November, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8061
WP No. 202941 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 202941 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
TRYAMBAKESHWAR
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRI
R/O VILLAGE KAVITAL - 584 120
POST - KAVITAL
TQ. SIRWAR DIST. RAICHUR
PETITIONER
...PETITIONER
(SRI. ANNARAYA M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. J AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR M.S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA
RAICHUR, DIST RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE TAHASILDAR, SIRWAR
TQ. SIRWAR DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
4. KARNATAKA STATE WAKF BOARD
#6 CUNNINGHAM ROAD VASANT
NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 051.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8061
WP No. 202941 of 2024
SRI NARESH V KULKARNI ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS BY
DIRECTING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHUR AND
TAHASILDAR SIRWAR TO DELETE THE NAME OF KARNATAKA
WAKF BOARD IN COLUMN NO.11 OF LAND SURVEY NO.25/*/*
MEASURING 07 ACRES 30 GUNTAS OF VILLAGE KAVITAL
TALUK SIRWAR DISTRICT RAICHUR VIDE ANNEXURED
CONCERNED THE PETITIONER LAND AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
1. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Learned counsel Sri. Naresh Kulkarni, accepts notice for respondent No.4.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ OR direction or order in the nature of Mandamus by directing the Deputy Commissioner Raichur and Tahasildar Sirwar to delete the name of Karnataka Wakf Board in column no.11 of land survey no.25/*/* measuring 07 acres 30 guntas of Village Kavital Taluk Sirwar District Raichur Vide Annexure-D concerned the petitioner land and etc. -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8061 WP No. 202941 of 2024
b) To pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 to 3, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that under identical circumstances, the Judgments / orders of this Court in the cases of Chand Sab vs. State of Karnataka & others - W.P.No.202965/2022 dated 06.01.2023 and M.Ravindra Reddy vs. State of Karnataka & others -
W.P.No.200340/2021 dated 23.02.2021, this Court allowed the aforesaid petitions and passed the following orders:-
ORDER PASSED IN W.P.No.202965/2022 "Heard Sri. Shivaputra S. Udabalkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this petition, the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus to delete the name of Mojangiri Sunni Waqt Property, in column Nos.9 and 12 in the RTC marked at Annexure-C.
3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without issuing any notice and without following procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the name of Mojangri Sunni Wagf -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8061 WP No. 202941 of 2024 Property, is ordered to be entered in column Nos.9 and 12 of RTC.
4. The learned Government Advocate would justify the order with reference to Circular dated 04.01.2010, which is produced in W.P.No.201590/2022.
5. It is needless to say that the Circular cannot Over-ride the provision of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. For effecting changes in the RTC the procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, is to be followed. The said procedure is not followed. Notice is not issued to the petitioner before making changes in the RTC. The impugned entries are made behind the back of the petitioner.
6. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed.
7. The respondents No.5 to 6 are directed to delete the name of the Mojangiri sunni Wagf Property in column Nos.9 and 12 of the RTC, within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to restore the entries as it stood earlier to impugned entry.
8. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed the rights of the petitioner.
9. The respondent No.5 may initiate proceedings pursuant to Circular if so advised in law. In such an event, the respondent No.5 shall issue notice to the petitioner and respondents No.6 before passing further orders pursuant to Circular."
ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.200340/2021
1. Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.6.
3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the extract of the mutation dated 19.09.2018 bearing MR No.H124 vide Annexures-D and -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8061 WP No. 202941 of 2024 D1 in respect of Sy.No.301/5 wherein respondent No.5- Tahsildar has entered the name respondent No.6 - Wakf Board as also for a mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to delete the name of respondent No.6 in respect of aforesaid survey number from the record of rights and restore the name of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in enjoyment and in actual possession of the land bearing Sy.No.301/5 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas situated at Manvi Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District. The aforesaid land had been granted to one Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera W/o Wahid Quadri, under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act in the year 1982 as regards which Form No.II was issued on 20.03.1982. Thereafter, the said Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera approached the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur for permission to sell the land which was granted vide Annexure-A dated 17.09.1991. In pursuance of which, the petitioner's father purchased the aforesaid land by registered sale deed dated 19.09.1991 and the name of the petitioner' father had been entered in the revenue records on 19.09.2018. Subsequent to the purchase, the name of the father of the petitioner was entered. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner came to be entered into in the revenue records in the year 2017.
5. Respondent No.2-Regional Commissioner has issued a office note relying on the government notification/circular directing the revenue authorities- Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Wakf officer to enter the name of Wakf Board as owners of lands, which were notified as that belonging to the Wakf Board in the records of rights. On the basis of the said direction, respondent No.5-Tahsildar without issuing notice unilaterally entered the name of the Wakf Board in the year 2011 of the records of rights. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no such right vested with the respondents to insert the name of the respondent No.6 - Wakf Board.
7. Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that the entry has been made in terms -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8061 WP No. 202941 of 2024 of notification issued in the year 1974 recognising the Wakf to be the owner of the property and as such, by following the procedure under Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017, the name of the respondent No.6 Wakf Board was mutated and entered into the records of rights. As such, what has been done is correct and proper.
8. Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned HCGP submits that the Tahsildar has acted in terms of office note issued by respondent No.2-Regional Commissioner who has in turn acted on notification of the year 1974 and Rule 6 and Rule 7 of Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.
9. Heard Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and perused the papers.
10. The petitioner claims that the land has been granted to Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera in the year 1973-74 and her name was entered in the revenue records whereas the Wakf Board claims that they are the owners of the land in terms of the notification issued in the year 1974. On the basis of this claim and counter claim as regards ownership of the land, there is a dispute between the parties.
11. In this background on basis of the notification of the year 1974, the Wakf Board wrote a letter to the respondent No.5 - Tahsildar to enter the name of the Wakf Board in the revenue records and Tahsildar acting on the said request has made the said entry along with the name of the petitioner whose name was already found in the revenue records in Column 11.
12. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides for a mode and methodology for making entries, carrying out mutation, etc., in the revenue records. One of the cardinal rules being that if any person's name to be effected in the revenue records or for any change in the revenue records, notice has to be issued and principles of natural justice has to be followed and the said party has to be heard and thereafter orders to be passed.
-7-NC: 2024:KHC-K:8061 WP No. 202941 of 2024
13. In the present case, all these aspects has been violated merely because the Wakf Board has sent a request to the respondent No.5 to enter the name of the Walkf Board in Column 11. Such a process and procedure is unknown to law. Once a name of the third party is entered in the revenue records, if the Wakf Board seeks to get its name in the records, the Wakf Board is required to follow the process and procedure under the Land Revenue Act including Section 136 of the said Act. Further more, the Tahsildar is required to follow the procedure under Rule 128 and 129 of the Land Revenue Rules before making any change. None of these are followed in the present case.
14. There is highhandedness in the matter in which Wakf Board wrote a letter to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has blindly considered the request of the Wakf Board and acted on.
15. In view thereof and since there is a serious lapse of procedural aspect, a certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 19.09.2018 inserting the name of the Wakf Board in Column 11 of the records of rights. Consequently, a mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.5-Tahsildar, Manvi to delete the name of respondent No.6 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.6-Wakf Board to follow the applicable law and due procedure of law if at all it has any right, title or interest in the said property for inserting of the name in the Records of Rights.
16. Learned HCGP is directed to communicate this order to the Regional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar within the jurisdiction of this Court so that these kind of orders are not passed putting innocent parties at risk behind their back.
17. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed."
5. The aforesaid orders passed by this Court in Chand Sab's case and M.Ravindra Reddy's case supra, are -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8061 WP No. 202941 of 2024 directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case and consequently, the present petition also deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the orders passed in the aforesaid petitions.
6. It is also relevant to state that though the name of the petitioner appears in Column Nos.9 and 12 of the RTC in relation to the subject land, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have purported to insert the name of respondent No.4 in Column No.11, without notifying or providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the alleged entry in Column No.11 showing the name of the respondent No.4 deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to respondent Nos.2 and 3 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
7. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed and disposed of in terms of the orders passed by this Court in the -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8061 WP No. 202941 of 2024 cases of Chand Sab vs. State of Karnataka & others - W.P.No.202965/2022 dated 06.01.2023 and M.Ravindra Reddy vs. State of Karnataka & others - W.P.No.200340/2021 dated 23.02.2021.
(ii) The impugned entry in Column No.11 showing the name of the respondent No.4 in relation to the subject lands bearing survey No.25/*/* measuring 07 acres 30 guntas of Village Kavital Taluk Sirwar District Raichur is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent Nos.2 and 3 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall notify the petitioner and respondent No.4 and reconsider the matter afresh after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8061 WP No. 202941 of 2024
(v) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to delete the name of respondent No.4 in Column No.11 of the RTCs in relation to the subject land within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(vi) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months form the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9