Smt.Sangeeta W/O Sunil vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5888 Kant

                               1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                    KALABURAGI BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

             W.P.NO.200611/2017 (KLR-LG)
                         C/W
           W.P.NO.200612 AND 200613 OF 2017


IN W.P.NO.200611/2017

BETWEEN:

Dhanraj S/o Maruti Dange,
Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Tripurant Locality Town Basavakalyan,
Tq: Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar.
                                              .... Petitioner

(By Sri Jayanandayya, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       represented by its Secretary
       Revenue Department (Land Allottee-3)
       M.S.Building, Bangalore-560 001.
2.     The Regional Commissioner,
       Kalaburagi Region,
       Kalaburagi-585 102.
3.     The Deputy Commissioner,
       Bidar-585 401.

4.     The Assistant Commissioner,
       Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar-585 401.
                                2




5.     The Tahsildar, Basavakalyan,
       Dist: Bidar-585 401.
                                             ... Respondents

(By Sri Viranagouda M.Biradar, AGA)

       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari
quashing the impugned order Annexure-E dated 29.02.2016 in
file No.REV/LND/CR-54/2010-11/4672-4678 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner Basavakalyan. and issue writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to call for the said order
and issue notices to all the parties whose name are entered in
the ROR for the year 2015-16 and delete the name of
Government of Karnataka from Column No.9 and 10 and
continue the name petitioner as it is, till the final disposal of
above writ petition and etc.,


IN W.P.NO.200612/2017

BETWEEN:

Dileepkumar S/o Maruti Dange,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture
And Ex-servicemen,
R/o Tripurant Locality in Town Basavakalyan,
Dist: Bidar.
                                               .... Petitioner

(By Sri Jayanandayya, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Represented by its Secretary
       Revenue Department (Land Allottee-3)
       M.S.Building, Bangalore-560 001.
2.     The Regional Commissioner,
       Kalaburagi Region,
       Kalaburagi-585 102.
                                3




3.     The Deputy Commissioner,
       Bidar

4.     The Assistant Commissioner,
       Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar.

5.     The Tahsildar Basavakalyan,
       Dist: Bidar.
                                             ... Respondents

(By Sri Viranagouda M.Biradar, AGA)

       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari
quashing the impugned order Annexure-E dated 29.02.2016 in
file No.REV/LND/CR-54/2010-11/4672-4678 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner Basavakalyan and issue writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to call for the said order
and issue notices to all the parties whose name are entered in
the ROR for the year 2015-16 and delete the name of
Government of Karnataka from Column No.9 and 10 and
continue the name petitioner as it is, till the final disposal of
above writ petition and etc.,

IN W.P.NO.200613/2017

BETWEEN:

Smt. Sangeeta W/o Sunil,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Household and Agriculture,
R/o Tripurant Locality in town Basavakalyan,
Dist: Bidar.
                                             .... Petitioner

(By Sri. Jayanandayya, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Represented by its Secretary
       Revenue Department (Land Allottee-3)
       M.S.Building, Bangalore-560 001.
                                4




2.    The Regional Commissioner,
      Kalaburagi Region,
      Kalaburagi-585 102.
3.    The Deputy Commissioner,
      Bidar-585 401.

4.    The Assistant Commissioner,
      Basavakalyan,
      Dist: Bidar-585 401.

5.    The Tahsildar, Basavakalyan,
      Dist: Bidar-585 401.
                                             ... Respondents

(By Sri. Viranagouda M.Biradar, AGA)

       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari
quashing the impugned order Annexure-E dated 29.02.2016 in
file No.REV/LND/CR-54/2010-11/4672-4678 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner Basavakalyan and issue writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to call for the said order
and issue notices to all the parties whose name are entered in
the ROR for the year 2015-16 and delete the name of
Government of Karnataka from Column No.9 and 10 and
continue the name petitioner as it is, till the final disposal of
above writ petition and etc.,

      These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the court made the following:-

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for

respondents/State.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that there was

a decree for declaration and partition in terms of the

judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013 rendered in

O.S.No.121/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Basavakalyan. In terms of the said judgment and decree,

the Senior Civil Judge, Basavakalyan has declared that the

Will dated 19.02.2000 and the sale-deed dated 28.01.2013

which are called in question in the said suit are null and

void and not binding on the plaintiff. The court has held

that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share. The suit is filed

in respect of the properties bearing Sy.No.160 measuring

02 acres 08½ guntas, Sy.No.262 measuring 05 acres 27

guntas, Sy.No.263 (old Sy.No.141) measuring 01 acre 15

guntas, Sy.No.264 measuring 02 acre 38 guntas of

Tripurant Village, Taluk Basavakalyan and the house

property bearing House No.30/157 (new No.30/158) and

house property bearing M.No.29/63.

3. Pursuant to the decree passed by the

competent Civil Court, the jurisdictional Tahasildar in

terms of the order dated 27.01.2014, has ordered to

mutate the names the decree holder and other parties in

the proceedings who are having share in the property.

4. Pursuant to the said order, names of the

persons having right over the suit property is entered in

the property records.

5. This being the position, the Assistant

Commissioner, Basavakalyan acting on a anonymous letter

dated 17.10.2014, has conducted enquiry and recorded

the statement of Ganapathi Maruti Dange who was the first

defendant in the aforesaid mentioned suit and also

Smt.Najeema Sultana who claims to have purchased the

property under the sale-deed dated 28.01.2013 which is

declared as null and void by the court of Senior Civil

Judge, Basavakalyan.

6. The Assistant Commissioner based on the

statement of the parties referred above has concluded that

while effecting the sale transaction in favour of Najeema

Sultana D/o Syed Tajoddin, the permission letter alleged to

have been issued by Principal Secretary is forged and on

the basis of a forged document a permission is said to

have been secured to alienate the property. It is also held

by the Assistant Commissioner that the property in

question is not the property granted to the family of the

petitioners or Ganapathi Maruti Dange and he has

concluded that the property is not a granted property by

the Government and noticing the fact that the seal and

signature of the Principal Revenue Secretary is forged

while alienating the property, Assistant Commissioner has

passed an order to hold criminal proceedings to prosecute

Smt.Najin Sultana D/o Syed Tajuddin and in terms of the

said order he has also directed that the property in

question be confiscated in favour of the Government.

7. The petitioners are aggrieved by this order and

have filed this writ petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would

contend the impugned order vide Annexure-E is passed

without notice to the petitioners and as such, it is liable to

be set-aside. It is also submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner having

given a finding that the property is not a granted property

would not have confiscated the property in favour of the

State.

9. Under these circumstances, he would submit

that the impugned order to the extent of confiscating the

property in favour of the State is liable to be set aside.

10. It is also the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the right of petitioners over the

property in question is declared in terms of the decree

passed in OS No.121/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Basavakalyan. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioners the said judgment and decree is questioned

before this court in filing RFA No.6064/2013 and said

appeal is also dismissed in terms of judgment and decree

dated 04.10.2021.

11. The learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondents would contend that the signature and the

seal of the Principal Secretary is forged while alienating the

property as noticed by the Assistant Commissioner, as

such, the Assistant Commissioner is justified in passing the

order for initiation of criminal proceedings.

12. As far as confiscation of the property is

concerned, no justification is found as the State is not in a

position to pin point any violation of law on the part of the

petitioners. Annexure-A reveals that the property is in the

name of forefather's of petitioner since 1965.

13. Under the circumstances, the petitions are to

be allowed and the impugned order to the extent of

confiscating the properties in question is to be set-aside.

14. It is made clear that the criminal proceedings

which is sought to be initiated in terms of the impugned

order shall be continued in case if it is already initiated.

15. The respondents No.3 to 5 shall take

immediate steps to restore the names of the petitioners

and the parties whose rights have been declared in terms

of the decree passed in OS No.121/2006 of the Senior Civil

Judge, Basavakalyan.

Sd/-

JUDGE sn