Sri K C Basavaraju vs The Deputy Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 6890 Kant

                              1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                           BEFORE

              THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

        WRIT PETITION No.17698 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI K C BASAVARAJU
S/O CHENNIGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHENNIGAIANAPALYA
SHETTYHALLI MAJARE, KASABA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK
PIN 572 102.                                      ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI G RAMANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       TUMKUR DISTRICT
       TUMKUR
       PIN - 572 102.

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT
       TUMKUR SUB DIVISION
       TUMKUR
       PIN - 572 102.

3.     THE TAHSILDAR
       TUMKUR TALUK
       TUMKUR
       PIN - 572 102.
                                 2



4.   SIDDAGANGAMMA
     W/O LATE GANGANNA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     RESIDING AT HASANAPURA VILLAGE
     KESARUMADU MAJARE
     URDIGERE HOBLI
     TUMKUR TALUK
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 104.

5.   SRI GANGADHAR
     S/O LATE GANGANNA
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     RESIDING AT HASANAPURA VILLAGE
     KESARUMADU MAJARE
     URDIGERE HOBLI
     TUMKUR TALUK
     TUMKUR DISTRICT
     PIN - 572 104.                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS DATED 02.08.2021 PASSED IN CASE NO.RP 141/2019
PASSED BY THE R1 AND ORDER DATED 25.06.2019 IN CASE
PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging an order under Section

136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 passed by the

first respondent dated 02.08.2021 in R.P.No.141 of 2019 by which,

he confirmed the order passed under Section 136(2) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by the second respondent

dated 25.06.2019 in R.A.TUM.247 of 2017 in respect of the land

bearing Sy.Nos.74/1 and 74/2 of Kesarumadu Village, Urdigere

Hobli, Tumkur Taluk.

2. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is relevant

to note that a suit in O.S.No.411 of 1997 was filed by the deceased

third respondent against the petitioner herein and his brothers for

redemption of mortgage of 1 acre 22 guntas in Sy.No.74 of

Kesarumadu Village, Urdigere Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, which was

mortgaged in terms of a usufructuary mortgage dated 02.12.1968.

The said suit, after contest, was decreed and the petitioner herein

and his brothers were directed to re-deliver possession of the

mortgaged property. An appeal filed by the petitioner herein and

his brothers in R.A.No259 of 2006 was also dismissed in terms of

the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2007. Thereafter, they

challenged it before this Court in R.S.A.No.2165 of 2007 (MOR),

which was also dismissed. Therefore, as on date, the petitioner

and his brothers are bound by the decree of redemption of the

Mortgage Deed dated 02.12.1968. In the meanwhile, the deceased

third respondent herein initiated proceedings for restoration of his

name in the revenue records by filing an appeal before the second

respondent. The second respondent after considering the decree

passed in O.S.No.No.411 of 1997 directed the name of the third

respondent to be entered in the revenue records, which was

however, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings before

the Court. This order was challenged by the petitioner herein

before the first respondent in Revision Petition No.141 of 2019.

The first respondent, after considering the developments in the

case including re-delivery of possession of the mortgage property

in F.D.P.No.10 of 2012 held that the petitioner has no right in

respect of the land in question and hence, rejected the revision

petition. The petitioner has now challenged the said order before

this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner had purchased 1 acre 22 guntas in the land bearing

Sy.No.74 of Kesarumadu Village, Urdigere Hobli, Tumkur Taluk in

terms of a Sale Deed in the year 1965 and that the deceased third

respondent was lying a claim to the aforesaid land.

4. A perusal of the decree in O.S.No.411 of 1997 and the

consequent proceedings would indicate that the petitioner had

taken 1 acre 22 guntas in Sy.No.74 of Kesarumadu Village,

Urdigere Hobli, Tumkur Taluk in mortgage and thereafter, the said

land was redeemed. If the land is redeemed and the possession of

the property was re-delivered by the petitioner and his brothers in

F.D.P.No.10 of 2012, the petitioner cannot have any grievance for

restoration of the name of the third respondent in the revenue

records. Hence, there is no merit in this Writ Petition and

accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DH