Karnataka High Court
Prathamika Krushi Pattina vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2022
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.22423 OF 2019 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA
SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA
TALAKADU, T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571122
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SRI. T.V.KUMAR,
S/O VENKATESH,
AGED 42 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HIREMATH N.S., ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. TALAKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
TALAKADU, T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571122
REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH, T.NARASIPURA,
2
T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571124
4. SRI. KANAKARAJ
S/O LATE SOLOMAN,
AGED 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO.152, 8TH CROSS,
3RD STAGE, R.S.NAIDUNAGAR,
KESARE, MYSURU-570007.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;
SRI. B.J.SOMAYAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION DATED 07.03.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 TALAKADU GRAMAPANCHAYATH IN SUBJECT NO.15, VIDE
ANNEXURE-M, E-KATHAS DATED 11.05.2017 VIDE ANNEXURES-
N AND O, AND THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TALUK EXECUTIVE OFFICER, T.
NARASIPURA, IN APPEAL NO.9/2017-18 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the resolution dated
07.03.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 on subject
No.15 and the E-Khatas of even date i.e., 11.05.2017 as
well as the Order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the
respondent No.3 in Appeal No.09/2017-18.
2. The petitioner claims that it is a Primary Co-
operative Society previously named as 'Holesalu Seva
Sahakara Sangha Limited' (for short, 'the Society'), who
was the beneficiary of a gift deed dated 15.06.1964
executed by Mr. L. Joseph in respect of the land bearing
Sy.No.324/11 (stated as Sy. No.320/11 in the petition)
measuring 0.02 guntas and situate at Vadeyandahalli,
Talakadu. Thereafter, a sale deed dated 18.06.1964 was
executed by Mr. L. Joseph in favour of the Society
conveying the house property abutting the property which
was gifted.
3. Based upon the above, mutation proceedings
were initiated in M.R.No.29/1996-97 and M.R.No.31/1996-
97 in respect of the property that was gifted and sold
respectively in favour of the Society. Consequent thereto,
the revenue records were brought out in the name of the
Society. After the Society was reconstituted, it was
renamed as 'Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Bank
Niyamitha'.
4. When things stood thus, the mother of Sri. L.
Joseph, Smt. Kanthamma, is said to have executed a sale
deed dated 01.03.1976 in favour of Mr. E.Geshan/Gersham
in respect of the property bearing No.(H-1-3) H, measuring
East to West 36 feet and North to South 24 feet, though
she had no subsisting right to do so. In the meanwhile,
the son of Mr. L. Joseph had executed a sale deed dated
21.07.1986 in favour of Mr. Altaf in respect of
khaneshumari No.1932, site No.1/324, measuring East to
West 58 feet and North to South 38 feet. Later, the said
Mr.Altaf sold the said site to Mr. S.Kanakaraj/Kantharaj,
respondent No.4 herein, in terms of a sale deed dated
12.06.1989 conveying the property bearing khaneshumari
No.1932, site No.1/324, measuring East to West 55 feet
and North to South 35 feet and vacant site measuring East
to West 55 feet and North to South 25 feet. Again, in
terms of a sale deed dated 04.07.1989 registered on
19.07.1989, Mr. E.Geshan sold the property bearing No.
(H-1-3)1/3, measuring East to West 56 feet and North to
South 63 feet in favour of the respondent No.4. Thereafter,
St. Amba Educational Society (R) represented by its
Secretary, Sri Kantharaj / Kanakaraj, who is respondent
No.4 herein, filed O.S. No.214/1997 before the Court of
the Civil Judge and JMFC., T. Narasipura, (Trial Court) for
perpetual injunction based on the sale deeds dated
12.06.1989 and 19.07.1989 referred supra. The said suit
was initially decreed in terms of the Judgment and Decree
dated 04.11.2003 and being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner herein preferred R.A. No.1/2005 before the
Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., T.Narasipura (First
Appellate Court). The said appeal was allowed in terms of
the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court
dated 29.10.2011 and the case was remanded back to the
Trial Court with a direction to the Trial Court to frame
necessary issue regarding title of the property and provide
an opportunity to the defendant/s to adduce evidence and
thereafter dispose off the suit within a period of six months
from the date of the said Judgment. After such a remand,
the Trial Court dismissed the suit in terms of the Judgment
and Decree dated 13.01.2015. Notwithstanding the
dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.214/1997, the respondent
No.4 approached the respondent No.2 and obtained a
resolution dated 07.03.2017 for transfer of khata based on
the sale deeds referred above. The respondent No.2
without verifying that as on that date, the khata stood in
the name of the petitioner, "Holesalu Seva Sahakara
Sangha Limited", yet ordered the transfer of the revenue
records to the name of the respondent No.4. Being
aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner preferred an
appeal No.9/2017-18 before the respondent No.3, who
dismissed the appeal on 07.03.2019.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present
writ petition is filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was the beneficiary of a gift
deed dated 15.06.1964 and the sale deed dated
18.06.1964. The revenue entries were brought out in the
name of petitioner based on the aforesaid documents and
therefore, the respondent No.4, who claimed title not from
Sri. L. Joseph, but from the mother and son of Sri. L.
Joseph, was not entitled to disturb the khata that stood in
the name of the petitioner. He submitted that in view of
the dismissal of the suit filed by St. Amba Educational
Society (R) represented by respondent No.4 herein, the
khata of the properties in question should be restored to
the name of the petitioner.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.4 submitted that the gift deed was in
respect of 0.02 guntas of land in Sy.No.324/11 and the
sale deed was in respect of the house that existed in the
said 0.02 guntas of land. He submitted that the respondent
No.4 was the purchaser of the extent of land lying in Sy.
No.324/10 and not the Sy. No.324/11. Hence, the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 were justified in confirming the
khata in the name of the respondent No.4.
8. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to
the case canvassed by both the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent
No.4.
9. It is now trite that revenue officers cannot
usurp the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to decide the title of
the parties. In the case on hand, Mr. L. Joseph being the
lawful owner of the property bearing Sy.No.324/11 had
gifted the same to the Society on 15.06.1964 and
thereafter, had sold an adjacent portion lying on the
northern side in terms of a sale deed dated 18.06.1964.
The respondent No.4 claimed that the property purchased
by him lay within Sy.No.324/10 and not the Sy.No.324/11
where the petitioner had a claim. If that be so, the khata
that stood in the name of the petitioner could not have
been altered or disturbed. The fact that the respondent
No.4 has attempted to disturb the khata that stood in the
name of the petitioner indicates that the respondent No.4
was claiming right, title and interest in respect of the very
same property that was claimed by petitioner.
10. It is evident from Annexure - R1, which is the
khata of the property claimed by the respondent No.4 that
he claimed title in respect of an area measuring 63 feet x
56 feet. The Civil Court while deciding O.S.No.214/1997
held that the respondent No.4 is not the owner of the site
measuring 63 feet x 56 feet and therefore, continuation of
the name of the respondent No.4 to an extent of 63 feet x
56 feet was not justified.
11. In that view of the matter, the resolution dated
07.03.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 on subject
No.15 (Annexure-M) and the E-Khathas dated 11.05.2017
(Annexures-N and O) as well as the order dated
07.03.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal
No.9/2017-18 (Annexure-Q) deserve to be set aside.
12. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The
khata standing in the name of the respondent No.4 in
respect of the property in question to an extent of 63 feet
x 56 feet is set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to
enter the name of the petitioner in the khata of the
property in question based on the gift deed dated
15.06.1964 as well as the sale deed dated 18.06.1964
within three months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. The respondent No.2 shall thereafter
carry out physical measurement of the property of the
petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 and in case if it is
found that there is any excess land in Sy.No.324/10, the
respondent No.2 may effect khata in respect of such
excess land in the name of the respondent No.4.
Sd/-
JUDGE
