Karnataka High Court
Ramachandra Gowda vs The Deputy Commissioner on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.740/2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
S/O DERANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT KARAYA VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT PIN - 574 212. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAISHANKAR SHASTRAY G, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALORE
PIN - 575 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PUTTUR SUB DIVISION
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT
PIN - 574 201.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
BELTHANGADY TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT
PIN - 575 212.
4. VITTAL SHETTY
S/O BABU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NINIKAL HOUSE
2
UPPINANGADY POST
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT
PIN - 574 241.
5. BALAKRISHNA GOWDA
S/O DERANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT KARAYA VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT
PIN - 574 212. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. RAVISHANKAR, ADV., FOR C/R-4;
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, A.G.A FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 12/07/2022 PASSED IN WP
NO.54656/2016 AND WP NO.54656/2016 MAY BE DISMISSED
AND THIS WRIT APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS
THROUGHOUT.
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 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.No.54656/2016.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and also perused the material available
on record.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal
stated in brief are, the appellant herein had
purchased the Warga land bearing survey No.59/15
measuring 2 acres 26 cents situated at Karaya
Village, Belthangady Taluk, D.K. District, from
respondent No.4 herein. The land bearing survey
No.106/1A1P2 measuring 0.62 cents and survey
No.69/2 measuring 0.15 cents which are situated
adjacent to the land bearing survey No.59/15 are
allegedly the Kumki land of the Warga land, which is
the subject matter of the sale deed and respondent
No.4 had filed an application for regularization of his
cultivation of the Kumki lands. In the sale deed
executed by him in favour of the appellant, he had
stated that he would not pursue his application filed
seeking regularization of the Kumki lands. In the
affidavit executed by him on 24.05.2005, he had
stated that possession of Kumki lands were handed
over to the appellant along with Warga land
purchased under the sale deed dated 24.05.2005
and he had also stated that, if for any reason, the
kumki lands are permanently granted to him, he
would be bound to execute the sale deed in respect
of the said land in favour of the appellant or in
favour of one Balakrishna Gowda (respondent No.5)
without any further consideration. It appears that
the grant order was passed in favour of respondent
No.4 on 22.03.2005.
4. In violation of terms of sale deed and
affidavit executed by him, respondent No.4 claimed
rights over the land, which was subject matter of the
grant, and therefore, the appellant and respondent
No.5 herein had filed an appeal before the Assistant
Commissioner challenging the grant made in favour
of respondent No.4. The said appeal was dismissed
by the Assistant Commissioner and the order of the
Assistant Commissioner was confirmed in appeal by
the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the appellant
and respondent No.5 had filed revision before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the said revision
was allowed and the grant order dated 22.03.2005
passed in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of
Kumki lands bearing survey No.106/1A1P2 and
survey No.60/P2 was cancelled. As against the said
order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,
respondent No.4 herein had filed
W.P.No.54656/2016, which was allowed by the
learned Single Judge and being aggrieved by the
same, respondent No.5 before the Single Judge, has
preferred this writ appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the reading of the covenants
of the sale deed and the terms of the affidavit at
Annexure-R1 would go to show that possession of
the land bearing survey No.106/1A1P2 and survey
No.60/P2, which have been granted to respondent
No.4 herein vide grant order dated 22.03.2005 has
been handed over to the appellant and respondent
No.5 under the registered sale deed dated
24.05.2005. He also submits that though respondent
No.4 herein has undertaken to execute the sale deed
in favour of appellant and respondent No.5 herein, in
the event a permanent grant being made in his
favour, he has not honoured his promise. On the
other hand, he has claimed right over the Kumki
lands, which have been granted to him. He submits
that since the Warga land attached to Kumki lands
have been sold by respondent No.4 under the sale
deed dated 24.05.2005, he cannot claim any right
over the Kumki lands, which are attached to the
Warga lands sold under the sale deed dated
24.05.2005.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.4 submits that the grant made in
favour of respondent No.4 cannot be cancelled
unless it is pointed out that respondent No.4 has
violated the terms and conditions of the grant or he
was not entitled for seeking grant. He submits that
on the ground of violation of the terms of the sale
deed or the affidavit executed by respondent No.4,
the grant made in favour of respondent No.4 cannot
be cancelled.
7. Undisputedly, respondent No.4 herein has
executed a sale deed dated 24.05.2005 in favour of
the appellant and respondent No.5 herein in respect
of land bearing survey No.59/15, which is a Warga
land and the lands bearing survey No.106/1A1P2
and survey No.60/P2 are its Kumki lands. In the sale
deed as well as in the affidavit executed by
respondent No.4 herein on 24.05.2005, he has
clearly stated that possession of the Kumki lands
bearing survey No. 106/1A1P2 and survey No.60/P2
have been handed over to the appellant and
respondent No.5 herein along with Warga lands
bearing survey No.59/15. It is also stated that
respondent No.4 will not pursue the application filed
by him seeking regularization of Kumki lands and in
case, if a permanent grant is made in his favour, he
would execute the sale deed in respect of the said
land in favour of the appellant and respondent No.5
herein without seeking further consideration.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 is
justified in stating that cancellation of the grant
cannot be sought on the ground that respondent
No.4 had violated the terms and conditions of the
sale deed or the affidavit executed by him. The grant
order has been passed in favour of respondent No.4
on 22.03.2005 and undisputedly, non-alienation
period has now expired. Therefore, if the appellant
and respondent No.5 have any grievance as against
respondent No.4 that he has violated the terms and
conditions of the sale deed or affidavit executed by
him on 24.05.2005, it is for them to seek necessary
reliefs before the competent Court to protect their
possession and interest in the lands bearing survey
No.106/1A1P2 and survey No.60/P2. In the event of
they initiating any such proceedings, the same shall
be considered in accordance with law without being
influenced by any observation made by the learned
Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition or
by this Court while disposing of this appeal.
9. Insofar as the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is concerned, we find no
illegality or irregularity in the said order, which calls
for interference in this appeal. Therefore, we decline
to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed subject to observations made
hereinabove.
SD/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
JUDGE
NMS
