Basavaraj vs The Commissioner And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 8479 Kant

                               1   W.P.No.201294/2022


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY


      WRIT PETITION No.201294/2022 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

Basavaraj S/o Ambaraya Hadagil,
Age: 49 Years, Occ: Private Service,
R/o H.No.2-364, Jagat,
Kalaburagi-585101.
                                         ... Petitioner
(By Sri.Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, Advocate)

AND:
1.     The Commissioner
       City Corporation
       at Kalaburagi-585101.

2.     Ningamma @ Lingamma
       W/o Ghaleppa Khanapur,
       Age: 69 Years, Occ: Household,
       R/o H.No.2-355,
       Kalaburagi-585101.
                                        ... Respondents
                                2        W.P.No.201294/2022


     This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned
endorsement bearing No.ªÀÄ£À¥Á/ªÀPÀ-1/¸ÀAQÃtð/2020-21
dated 18.02.2021 issued by the respondent No.1 in
house property bearing corporation No.2-364 situated at
Jagat Kalaburagi is produced as at Annexure-E to the
writ petition and etc.

      This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:

                         ORDER

The petitioner has preferred the instant writ

petition with a prayer to quash the endorsement dated

18.02.2021 issued by the first respondents vide

Annexure-E and also to direct the first respondent to

consider the petitioner's representations dated

16.03.2021 and 08.04.2022 vide Annexures-D and F

respectively.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and also perused the material on record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the second

respondent herein had filed O.S.No.376/2008 before the

jurisdictional Civil Court to declare her title in respect of

the property bearing Corporation No.2-364 situated at

Jagat, Kalaburagi district and said suit was initially

decreed on 30.10.2017 and as against the decree

passed in the said suit, the petitioner herein had filed

R.A.No.101/2017, which was allowed by the first

appellate Court on 09.10.2019 and the decree passed in

favour of the second respondent herein in

O.S.No.376/2008 was set aside and in effect the suit

was dismissed. As against the judgment and decree

passed in R.A.No.101/2017, the second respondent

herein has filed RSA No.200107/2020, which is pending

consideration before this Court. In the mean while, the

petitioner has given representations to the first

respondent to enter his name in the revenue records of

the land, which was the subject matter of the suit. The

first respondent considering the same has issued an

endorsement stating that since the regular second

appeal is pending before this Court, the request made

by the petitioner cannot be considered. Being aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the impugned endorsement is illegal and

arbitrary and since the regular appeal filed by the

petitioner has been allowed and the suit filed by the

second respondent is now dismissed, there is no

justification on the part of the first respondent in

refusing to enter the name of the petitioner in the

revenue records of the land in question. He submits

that merely because for the reason that the regular

second appeal is pending before this Court, the first

respondent could not have issued the impugned

endorsement.

5. I have carefully considered the argument

advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also perused the material on record.

6. A reading of the representations vide

Annexures-D and F submitted by the petitioner would go

to show that he has made a prayer before the first

respondent to enter his name in the revenue records of

the land in question, which was the subject matter of

O.S.No.376/2008, on the ground that the judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.376/2008

dated 30.10.2007 was set aside in an appeal filed by

him in R.A.No.101/2017. Except contending the same,

he has not produced any title deed before the first

respondent in support of his title for entering his name

in the revenue records of the land, which was the

subject matter of O.S.No.376/2008. Merely for the

reason that the suit filed by the second respondent

seeking declaration of her title in respect of the land in

question has been dismissed, the same does not confer

any title over the property, which was subject matter of

O.S.No.376/2008, on the petitioner. The petitioner is

required to independently establish his title over the suit

property for the purpose of getting the revenue records

of the of land in question in his name. In addition to the

same, it is not in dispute that regular second appeal filed

by the second respondent herein as against the

judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.101/2017 is

pending before this Court.

7. Under the circumstances, there is no illegality

and irregularity in the impugned endorsement issued by

the first respondent. I see no merit in this writ petition

and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srt CT-SMP