Sanaulla Shareef vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5990 Kant

                           1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             WRIT APPEAL NO.486/2021

BETWEEN:

1.     SANAULLA SHAREEF
       S/O. LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SHAREEF,
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

2.     SMT. BADRUNISSA
       D/O. LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SHAREEF,
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

3.     KALEEMULLA SHAREEF
       S/O. LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SHAREEF,
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

4.     SMT. RAHIMUNEESA
       D/O. LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SHAREEF,
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

5.     SMT. NUZARTHUNISSA
       D/O. LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SHAREEF,
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

       ALL THE PETITIONERS FROM 1 TO 5 ARE
       R/O. OLD SBM ROAD,
       NELAMANGALA TOWN,
       BENGALURU RURAL
       DISTRICT-562101.                    ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADV.)
                                2

AND:

1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
        REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
        VIDHANA VEEDHI,
        VIDHANA SOUDHA,
        BENGALURU-560 001.

2.      DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
        BENGALURU DISTRICT,
        BENGALURU-560 009.

3.      TAHASILDAR
        BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
        BENGALURU-560 009.

4.      REVENUE INSPECTOR
        SONDEKOPPA,
        BENGALURU NORTH
        TALUK-562 162.                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. VANI.H., AGA)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P.
NO.1584/2021 (KLR-RES) DATED 18.02.2021 AND KINDLY
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND GRANT THE PRAYER MADE
IN W.P. NO.1584/2021 (KLR-RES).

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This intra-court appeal is filed challenging the order

dated 18th February 2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1584/2021 (KLR-

RES).

2. The appellants herein had filed

W.P.No.1584/2021 seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Quash the impugned order at Annexure-H and annexued map at Annexure-H1 dated 18.05.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru at No.LND (N) CR.267/2015-16 by issuing writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order as the case may be.

b) And further direct the 4th respondent to implement the order at Annexure-D, Annexure-E and Annexure-F by issuing necessary consequential direction in that behalf.

c) Issue such incidental relief which may deemed fit on the facts and circumstances of the case and also for cost to secure the ends of justice and equity."

3. It is the case of the appellants that in the

year 1977, the land bearing Sy.No.72 of

Hullegowdanahalli village, Dasanapura Hobli,

Nelamangala taluk, measuring 2 acres (hereinafter

referred to as "the land in question") was granted to

Smt.Jainabi and Mohammed Ibrahim Shareef under

whom the appellants claim and though after their death,

a prayer was made to mutate the name of the appellants

in the revenue records of the said land, the Special

Deputy Commissioner had refused to do the same on the

ground that the grant order was bogus and not genuine.

The said order was questioned by the appellants before

this court in W.P.Nos.19435-40/2012 which was

dismissed by the learned single Judge of this court and in

the writ appeal filed by the appellants in W.A.No.4020-

25/2013, the Division Bench of this court had set aside

the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as

the Special Deputy Commissioner and remitted the

matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner to consider

the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the

appellants to put forward their case.

4. Thereafter, the Special Deputy

Commissioner, Bangalore District, by his order dated 15th

September 2015 vide Annexure-D held that the grant

orders were genuine and directed the Tahsildar,

Bangalore North Taluk to enter the name of the

appellants in the revenue records of the land in question.

However, the Tahsildar had not implemented the said

order and on the other hand, vide the communications

dated 27.11.2017 and 28.10.2017 at Annexures-E and F,

the land in question was directed to be treated as

"gomal" land. It is under these circumstances, the

appellants had preferred W.P.No.1584/2021 before this

court and the learned Single Judge of this court has

dismissed the said writ petition vide the order impugned

herein.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits

that since the order at Annexure-D dated 15th September

2015 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner has

attained finality, the Tahsildar is bound by the said order

and he ought to have entered the name of the appellants

in the revenue records of the land in question and the

learned Single Judge of this court has failed to appreciate

this aspect of the matter. He also submits that in respect

of very same land, the communications at Annexures-E

and F dated 27.11.2017 and 28.10.2017 have now been

issued to treat the land in question as government gomal

land and in the said event, the appellants would be put in

hardship.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate submits that pursuant to the order at

Annexure-D dated 15.09.2015, the appellants have not

submitted any representation before the jurisdictional

Tahsildar to enter their name in the revenue records of

the land in question and if such a representation is made,

the same will be considered in accordance with law and

she also submits that the land, which is the subject

matter of Annexures-E ad F dated 27.11.2017 and

28.10.2017, are not the very same lands, which is the

subject matter of the order dated 15.09.2015 passed by

the Special Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D.

7. Having regard to the submission made by the

learned Additional Government Advocate, we are of the

considered view that this writ appeal can be disposed of

reserving liberty to the appellants to make necessary

application before the jurisdictional Tahsildar to enter

their names in the revenue records of the land in

question on the strength of the order dated 15.09.2015

passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore

District, vide Annexure-D and it is needless to state that

if such an application is filed, the jurisdictional Tahsildar

shall consider the same in accordance with law. Further,

in view of the submission made by the learned Additional

Government Advocate that the land, which is the subject

matter of Annexures-E and F dated 27.11.2017 and

28.10.2017, is not the very same land, which is the

subject matter of the order dated 15.09.2015 passed by

the Special Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D, the

apprehension of the appellants is ill-founded and at any

event, to protect their right and interest over the land in

question, it is always open to the appellants to approach

the jurisdictional Civil Court and seek necessary releifs.

Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-