Karnataka High Court
Jakkappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2022
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
WP No. 102325 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 102325 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. JAKKAPPA S/O. RAYAPPA TIMMANNAVAR,
AGE 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHEGUNASHI - 591220,
TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SHANKAR S/O. RAYAPPA TIMMANNAVAR,
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHEGUNASHI-591220,TQ. ATHANI, DIST.
BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
VINAYAKA B
V 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
VINAYAKA Location:
BV Dharwad
Date:
2022.07.16
BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
10:37:35
+0530
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE TAHASILDAR RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, PIN-587314,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
-2-
WP No. 102325 of 2022
3. TIPPANNA S/O. ISHAVARAPPA PUTANI,
AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANAGANDI/TERDAL-587315,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
4. PRAKASH S/O. BASAPPA PUTANI,
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SIDDESHWAR GALLI, TERDAL-587315,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
(NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING
NO.BHUMIVNIDI/743/2022-23 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
DATED 25/4/2022 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
-3-
WP No. 102325 of 2022
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 24.04.2022 at Annexure-E issued by the respondent
No.2/ Tahasildar, calling upon the petitioner to furnish IIE
sketch for making entries in the revenue records
consequent to the decree drawn by the learned Senior
Civil Judge ad JMFC, Banahatti in OS No.17/2020 dated
20.07.2020.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the requirement of production of IIE
sketch has been considered by this Court in the case of
Sri.Lokesha V/s. The State of Karnataka and others
in WP No.7441/2020 dated 10.07.2020 and
Shakunthala H.S., V/s. Tahasildar in WP
No.10158/2021 dated 18.08.2021.
3. Having gone through the said two judgments,
this Court fids that what was considered in the case of Sri.
Lokesha (Supra) was the requirement of production of IIE
WP No. 102325 of 2022
sketch before the Sub-Registrar, when the document was
tendered for registration. This Court, while noticing the
fact that the document was presented to the Registrar in
terms of the compromise decree passed by a competent
Civil Court and further it was also noticed that the State
Government had issued two circular/ Memorandum dated
03.01.2019 and 21.10.2019 directing the Sub-Registrar
not to insist upon IIE sketch while registering an
instrument regarding a compromise decree before the Civil
Court, proceeded to pass the said Judgment.
4. In the case of Shakuntala (Supra), this Court
noticed the provisions contained in Section 128 and 135 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act, 1964' for short). Further another
circular dated 14.11.2016 issued by the Director of
Bhoomi and UPOR dispensing with the requirement of
production of IIE sketch, whenever a Court decree is
passed was noticed and therefore a direction was issued to
WP No. 102325 of 2022
the Tahasildar to make entries in terms of the compromise
decree without insisting on IIE sketch.
5. However, on hearing the learned counsel for
petitioner and the learned HCGP, this Court finds that
there is a purpose behind the insistance on production of
IIE sketch prepared at the hands of the license surveyor,
as contained in Clause-C of Section 131 of the Act, 1964.
It provides that whenever there is alienation of a part of
agricultural land or there is a division of a land into
different parts entitling various persons who held the
property, when unless a proper sketch is prepared at the
hands of the license surveyor depicting the correct division
or sub-division of the lands and the entitlement of each
person, the survey department will not be in a position to
maintain accurate records. If this mandatory requirement
is not fulfilled, it would give rise to several litigations in
future and the survey department or revenue department
will not be in a position to furnish correct information
WP No. 102325 of 2022
regarding the division of the property and the entitlement
of the owners.
6. Further, the issue is not only regarding the
entry of the name of a person in the land revenue records
or record of rights. The purpose of the provision is to
enable the maintenance of proper record in the office of
the survey department/ revenue department. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the very purpose behind
the enactment of the provision and the wisdom of the
legislature in mandating production of revenue sketch
(popularly known as 'IIE' sketch) prepared by a license
surveyor wherever there is a division or sub-division of a
land would be defeated if a direction is issued to the
Tahasildar to enter the names of the person in the record
of rights consequent to a compromise decree drawn before
a Civil Court. No doubt, the State Government has clarified
in it's subsequent circular dated 03.01.2019, 21.10.2019
and the circular dated 14.11.2016 issued by the Director
of Bhoomi and UPOR, as noticed by the coordinate
WP No. 102325 of 2022
benches in the judgment sited herein above, clarifying that
the Sub-Registrar need not insist upon furnishing the IIE
sketch while registering a document. However, the same
may not be readily acceptable in the case of the entry in
the revenue records.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner has also
admitted that it would be in the interest of the petitioners
that a revenue sketch is prepared at the hands of the
licensed surveyor clearly depicting the manner in which
the parties have sought to divide the property in terms of
the compromise decree entered into before the Civil Court.
This would enable the revenue authorities/ Department of
Surveyor to maintain proper records showing the correct
position and the division/ sub-division of the properties.
8. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed
of with a direction to the petitioners to get a revenue
sketch (IIE sketch) prepared at the hands of a licensed
surveyor in terms of Clause-C of Section 131 of the Act,
1964 and furnish the same to the respondent/ Tahasildar
WP No. 102325 of 2022
so that all other formalities regarding the entry of the
petitioners in the record of rights and other land revenue
records shall be completed as expeditiously as possible. As
and when the revenue sketch is furnished by the
petitioners to respondent/ Tahasildar, the Tahasildar shall
make the revenue entries in the record of rights and the
revenue records without wasting any further time.
Ordered accordingly.
SD
JUDGE
PJ
