Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivachandra S/O Rudrappa ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 3 August, 2021
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 31291/2008 (KLR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHIVACHANDRA, S/O RUDRAPPA KAMBALE
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANCHAKARWADI VILLAGE
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM
2. SRI. APPANNA, S/O RUDRAPPA KAMBALE
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANCHAKARWADI VILLAGE
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM
3. SRI. RAMACHANDRA, S/O. RUDRAPPA KAMBALE
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANCHAKARWADI VILLAGE
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM
4. SRI. SHANKAR, S/O RUDRAPPA KAMBALE
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANCHAKARWADI VILLAGE
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PRASHANT MATHAPATI, FOR SRI. RAMACHANDRA A.
MALI, ADVOCATE)
W.P.No.31291/2008
2
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELGAUM DISTRICT, BELGAUM
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKODI, DIST.BELGAUM
3. THE TAHASILDAR
RAIBAG, DIST.BELGAUM
4. CHIDANAND BHAIRU SALAGARE,
AGED MAJOR, OCC: NIL,
R/O. DIGGEWADI, TQ.RAIBAG,
DIST. BELGAUM
5. SMT.NIMBEWWA BHIMAPPA KAMBALE
AGED MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KANCHAKARWADI, TQ. RAIBAG
DIST. BELGAUM
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. K. BASAVARAJ, AGA FOR R1-R3;
SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4;
R5 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 16.02.2006 MADE IN RB.RTA.59/2004-05
PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXE-F
CONFIRMING THE ORDERS DATED.31.10.2003 MADE IN
RTS:AP:187:97-98 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND
THE ORDER DATED 27.09.1997 MADE IN NO.RTS.SR.7/97-98
PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT HEREIN AS THE SAME
BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE
IN LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.No.31291/2008
3
ORDER
The petitioners herein are before this Court
challenging the order at Annexure-F dated 16.02.2006,
passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order
dated 31.10.2003 passed by the 2 n d respondent and the
order dated 27.09.1997 passed by the 3 r d respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that,
Rudrappa Kambale, the father of the petitioners herein
had purchased the land bearing R.S.No.733/2 totally
measuring 18 acres 18 guntas jointly along with his
three other brothers in the year 1957 and the entries in
respect of the said land were jointly made in the name
of four brothers including the father of the petitioners
herein. The 5 t h respondent herein is the widow of one
Bhimappa Kambale, who is the brother of Rudrappa
Kambale. After the death of Bhimappa Kambale, 5 t h
respondent had sold an extent of 4 acres 24 guntas out
of 18 acres 18 guntas in favour of the 4 t h respondent.
On the basis of the said sale deed, the revenue records
W.P.No.31291/2008
in respect of the land to the extent measuring 4 acres
24 guntas were changed in the name of 4 t h respondent.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein
had filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner,
who had dismissed the said appeal on 28.02.2000 and
as against the said order, W.P.No.4301/2001 was filed
before this Court and this Court allowed the said writ
petition and remanded the matter back to the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner had once
again dismissed the appeal vide order dated
31.10.2003, which has been now confirmed by the
Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 16.02.2006.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before
this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, 5 t h respondent had no exclusive title over the land
which has been sold by her in favour of the 4th
respondent. He submits that, all the four brothers were
joint holders of entire extent of 18 acres 18 guntas and
W.P.No.31291/2008
there was no partition between the said brothers and
without the knowledge of the other joint owners of the
property, 5 t h respondent has sold 4 acres 24 guntas of
land in favour of 4 t h respondent, based on which the
revenue entries have been made in the name of the 4 t h
respondent exclusively. He submits that, even the
petitioners are having right over the said property and
therefore, the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities
cannot be sustained.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.4 submits that, he has filed a suit for
declaration of the title in respect of the land purchased
by him from 5 t h respondent, in O.S.No.1/1998 before
the jurisdictional Civil Court and the said suit was
decreed on 31.05.2005. He submits that,
subsequently, a Regular Appeal was filed as against the
said judgment and decree by the petitioners herein and
in the said appeal, the judgment and decree passed in
the suit was set aside and the matter was remitted
W.P.No.31291/2008
back to the trial Court. As against the order passed in
the Regular Appeal, the 4th respondent has now
preferred a Miscellaneous Second Appeal before this
Court in MSA No.100037/2014 and the same is pending
before this Court.
5. Since the parties are already before the Civil
Court, wherein the dispute with regard to the title of
the property in question is being adjudicated, it is not
necessary to interfere with the orders passed by the
Revenue Authorities.
This writ petition is therefore disposed of with an
observation that the entries made in the revenue
records of the property in dispute shall be subject to
the outcome of the civil suit in O.S.No.1/1998 and the
Miscellaneous Second Appeal, which is now pending
before this Court in MSA No.100037/2004.
Sd/-
JUDGE
g ab
