Amresh Kumar S/O Late Pandrinath ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1169 Kant

                          1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

 WRIT PETITION No.223075 OF 2020 (KLR-RR-SUR)

BETWEEN:

AMRESH KUMAR
S/O LATE PANDRINATH DOIJODE
AGE 65 YEARS, OCC AGRIUCLTURE
R/O #7-2-161,
RANGREJ GALLI, BIDAR 585401
                                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI AMIT KUMAR DESHPANDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI GANESH S KALBURAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.

2.     DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BIDAR-585401

3.     SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
       BIDAR 585401

4.     DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
       THASIL OFFICE, BIDAR 585401
5.     ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORD
                              2




     THASIL OFFICE BIDAR 585401

6.   THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
     BIDAR 585401

7.   THE THASILDAR
     THASIL OFFICE BIDAR 585401
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR , AGA)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS, AND THEREBY GRANT
FOLLOWING RELIEFS: I) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
DATED 30.11.2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.5 IN THE
FILE No.K/11E/2015-16 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS
AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

     IN THIS WRIT PETITION, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS TODAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Brief facts for the adjudication of this writ petition

are that, the petitioner claims to be the owner in

possession of the land bearing Sy.No.48/A3, Gullar Haveli

Village, Bidar Taluk. Earlier, the land bearing Sy.No.48

was divided into two parts, one measuring 18 acre 2

gunta which was re-numbered as Sy.No.48/A; and

another part measuring 3 acre 39 gunta as Sy.No.48/A3.

One Shamshoddin Quadri was the owner of the land as

per the grant made by the Government under Hyderabad

Inam Abolition Act and the said Shamshoddin Quadri sold

the land bearing Sy.No.48/A to one late Zharnabai (grand

mother of the petitioner) as per Sale Deed dated

11.10.1965. The said late Zharnabai divided the land

bearing Sy.No.48/A among her three sons namely,

Pandarinath (father of the petitioner), Dayanand and

Ananathram and all the three sons got six acres each as

their share. It is further stated in the writ petition that

the name of the father of the petitioner herein was

incorporated in the revenue entries in Sy.No.48/A3 and

after his demise, the land was inherited by the petitioner.

The petitioner filed application to respondent No.2 for

conversion of the land to non-agriculture purpose,

however, there was discrepancy in the hissa map and as

such, survey was conducted wherein, it was shown that

the area of 29 guntas, which was in possession of the

petitioner, was shown to be in possession of respondent

No.3 and as such, the petitioner sought for clarification in

this regard; and being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner filed suit in OS No.15/1998 on the file of the

Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Bidar, against the

respondents seeking relief of declaration of title in respect

of the land bearing Sy.No.48/A3 measuring 29 gunta

towards Eastern side of the entire land bearing

Sy.No.48/A3 comprising 06 acre, situated at Gullar Haveli

Village and the said suit came to be dismissed by the trial

Court, and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

preferred RA No.16/2008 before the Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Bidar and said appeal came to be

allowed, directing respondent No.3 (defendant No.4 in

the suit) to handover the vacant possession of the suit

land in respect of the petitioner. The respondents being

aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First

Appellate Court, filed RSA No.7032/2013 before this

Court and, this Court, by judgment dated 13.12.2013

dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents herein

and as such, confirmed the judgment and decree passed

by the First Appellate Court. Thereafter, the petitioner

filed execution petition before the trial Court and thereby

possession was redelivered to the petitioner, however,

revenue records were not mutated in favour of the

petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner has filed appeal before respondent No.6 in No.

Rev/Appeal/CR-43/2019-2020 (Annexure-D5) and the

said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated

03.01.2020 and thereafter, respondent No.5 issued

endorsement dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure-E) holding

that 11E map cannot be issued, unless there is change in

the revenue entries and being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.4 which

came to be dismissed by order Annexure-F dated

04.10.2016 and same was challenged before the

respondent No.2 in Rev/Appeal/CR-02/2017-18 and

respondent No.2, by order dated 06.01.2020, dismissed

(Annexure-G) and same is challenged in this writ petition.

The respondents have filed statement of objections

contending that the impugned orders passed by the

respondent-authorities are just and proper and same is in

terms of the survey records shown as Hissa No.C and

therefore, Sketch 11E cannot be granted and accordingly,

sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

2. I have heard Sri Amit Kumar Deshpande,

learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf Sri Ganesh

S. Kalburgi, for the petitioner and Sri Viranagouda

Biradar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

3. Sri. Amit Kumar Deshpande, learned senior

counsel submitted that the right of the petitioner was

crystallised as per the judgment of this Court in RSA

No.7032/2013 and same has reached finality and in that

view of the matter, he contended that the judgment and

decree passed by the trial Court declaring the rights of the

petitioner cannot be altered by the respondents in mutation

entries, in terms the provisions contained under Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, 1964.

4. Sri Viranagouda Biradar, learned AGA argued

that though the rights of the parties have been determined

in civil proceedings, however, the survey records show that

the part of the land has been in possession of the

respondent-authorities and same cannot be interfered with

in this writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties, it is forthcoming from the writ papers that the

petitioner is the owner in possession of the land bearing

Sy.No.48/A3 to an extent of 29 gunta towards the Eastern

side as shown in the schedule in OS No.15/1998. The

petitioner has filed OS.No.15/1998 before the trial Court

seeking relief of declaration of title, which came to be

dismissed by the trial Court on 29.09.2007. The

respondent-authorities have contested the suit, by filing the

writ petition and adduced evidence before the trial Court.

The First Appellate Court, by its judgment and decree dated

20.04.2012, set aside the aforementioned judgment and

decree passed by the trial Court, and as such, decreed the

suit in favour of the petitioner herein and the First Appellate

Court, further declared that the plaintiff/petitioner is the

owner of the land bearing Sy.No.48/A3 measuring 29 gunta,

situated at Gullar Haveli, Bidar and directed the defendants

therein to handover the vacant possession of the suit land

to the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree passed by

the First Appellate Court was carried in appeal by the

respondents herein in RSA No.7032/2013 and this Court, by

judgment dated 13.12.2013, dismissed the appeal and as

such, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the

First Appellate Court and as such, the title of the petitioner

is crystallized in terms of the aforementioned judgment

passed by this Court. In furtherance of the same, the

mutation was entered in terms of the order in Execution

Petition. In this regard, respondent No.7 has raised certain

queries as per Annexure-D4 and thereafter, the appeal

preferred by the petitioner under Section 136(2) of

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, came to be dismissed

as per order dated 03.01.2020 and same was re-

adjudicated in appeal before respondent No.5 herein.

However, that appeal also came to be dismissed and

thereafter, respondent No.2 herein, by order dated

06.01.2020, held that land in question belongs to Jail

Garden.

6. Perusal of the orders passed by the revenue

courts, referred to above, would indicate that the

respondent-authorities never agitated these aspects before

the trial Court and only raised new pleas pursuant to the

order passed by this Court in RSA No.7032/2013. The

finding recorded by respondent-authorities particularly, at

Annexures-F and G are non-est and the reasons assigned by

the respondent-authorities is based on certain technical

issues which runs contrary to the judgment passed by this

Court in RSA No.7032/2013. In that view of the matter, I

find force in the submission made the learned Senior

counsel that the impugned orders passed by the

respondent-authorities, which states that the subject land is

acquired for the purpose of Jail Garden cannot be

considered. In view of aforementioned reasons, I proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is allowed;

ii) Endorsement Annexure-E dated 30.11.2015 issued by respondent No.5; order Annexure- F dated 04.10.2016 passed by respondent No.4; order Annexure-G dated 06.01.2020 passed by respondent No.2; and order Annexure-D5 dated 03.01.2020 passed by respondent No.6 are quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB