Smt Hajirambi vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2453 Kant

                           1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

          THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

       WRIT PETITION NO.15320 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN

SMT HAJIRAMBI
W/O LATE SYED KARIM SAB
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

1.     SYED MULLA
       S/O LATE SYED KARIM SAAB
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
       R/O MADARIPALYA
       SHIMOGA-577201

2.     NOOR JAHAN
       D/O LATE SYED KARIM SAAB
       OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK
       R/O MADARIPALYA
       SHIMOGA-577201

3.     SYED DAWOOD
       D/O LATE SYED KARIM SAAB
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
       OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
       R/O MADARIPALYA
       SHIMOGA-577201

4.     SYED ANSAR PASHA
       S/O LATE SYED KARIM SAAB
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
                            2




      OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
      R/O NO.18/192, 2ND MAIN ROAD
      GOPALPURA, MAGADI
      BANGALORE-560023

SYED NOOR
S/O SYED AHAMED SAAB
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR

5.    SYED RABBANI
      S/O LATE SYED NOOR SAAB
      AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O MADARIPALYA
      SHIMOGA-577201                 ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR;
    SRI. DINESH M BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      REVENUE SECRETARY
      MS BUILDING
      BENGALURU-560001

2.    DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      SHIMOGA DISTRICT
      SHIMOGA-577201

3.    ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
      SHIMOGA SUB DIVISION
      SHIMOGA-577201

4.    TAHSILDAR
      SHIMOGA TALUK
      SHIMOGA-577201
                           3




5.   P R GANESH
     S/O S P RAJANNA
     AGED MAJOR
     GANDHI BAZAAR
     SHIMOGA-577203                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
    SRI. S.V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2020 PASSED IN
R.MISC.1/2020 ON THE FILE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
SHIMOGA AS PER ANNEXURE-L, AND ORDER DATED
03.12.2019 PASSED IN PDA NO.77/2019-20 ON THE FILE
OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA AS PER
ANNEXURE-J AND DIRECT THE R1 TO 4 TO ENTER THE
NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE RECORDS
IN RESPECT OF LAND MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN THE
SCHEDULE BELOW AND ETC.,


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

                        ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

This writ petition is filed challenging the order

dated 30.11.2020 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner confirming the order dated 03.12.2019

passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

2. The petitioners herein lay claim in respect of

about 9 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.98, 99 and

100 of Sulebylu Village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk.

Although the petitioners do not dispute the fact that

under a sale deed dated 21.02.1964, an extent of 5

acres and 38 guntas of land was sold in favour of

father of the fifth respondent herein and his family

members, however, it is contended by the petitioners

that the said survey numbers had an extent of 9 acres

and 20 guntas and therefore the name of the

petitioners should have been continued in the land

revenue records in respect of the lands other than 5

acres and 38 guntas of land which belongs to the fifth

respondent by virtue of a registered instrument. In

this regard, the petitioners had approached the

Assistant Commissioner seeking to enter their names

in the land revenue records. The Assistant

Commissioner dismissed the appeal by order dated

03.12.2019. The Deputy Commissioner also

dismissed the revision petition filed at the hands of

the petitioners.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vighneshwar

S.Shastri, appearing for the petitioners would submit

that although the original suit in O.S.No.17/2011

which was filed by the petitioners seeking partition

and separate possession and declaration challenging

the sale deeds executed in favour of the fifth

respondent and others was dismissed and no appeal

has been preferred, nevertheless, one more original

suit in O.S.No.830/1993, which was filed by father of

petitioner No.5 seeking permanent injunction was

dismissed by the trial Court. However, in a Regular

Appeal, judgment of the trial court was reversed in

R.A.No.77/2004. Therefore father of respondent No.5

has preferred RSA No.1948/2008 and the same is

pending consideration before this Court.

4. On hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and

the learned AGA and on perusing the petition papers,

this Court finds that the decision of the revenue

authorities cannot be faulted with. The revenue

authorities have rightly held that the entry of the

name of fifth respondent's father and others in the

revenue records was in accordance with the registered

instruments. Therefore, if the petitioners' require that

the name of the father of fifth respondent to be

removed from the revenue records, appropriate

declaration should be obtained at the hands of a

competent Civil Court.

5. Consequently, this writ petition stands

disposed of with the observation that the petitioners

shall be entitled to have their names entered in the

revenue records in respect of the lands in question

only after a declaration is made in their favour at the

hands of a competent civil court.

Ordered accordingly.

I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration

and accordingly the same stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE JT/-