Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O Veerasangappa ... vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 13 June, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.200846/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.200846/2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
RAMESH S/O VEERASANGAPPA BHATAMBRA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHATMBRA, TQ. BHALKI,
DIST: BIDAR-585401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR-585401.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BHALKI, TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
4. RAJKUMAR S/O PREMNATH BIRADAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHATMBRA, TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
BY SRI. RAVI.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 (IN CP NO.30339/2022)
2 W.P.No.200846/2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 28.02.2020 BEARING
NO.REV/APPEAL/CR/08/2018-19.7125-7127 VIDE ANNEXURE-C
AND ALSO ORDER RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 03/03/2022
BEARING NO.REV/APPEAL/RP/17/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the land
bearing Sy.No.169/5 measuring 7 acres 13 guntas situated
at Bhatambra village, Bhalki Taluk, Bidar District, has
preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated
28.02.2020 passed by the second respondent in proceedings
bearing No.Rev/Appeal/CR/08/2018-19/7125-7127 vide
Annexure-C and the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by
respondent No.1 in proceedings bearing
No.Rev/Appeal/R.P.17/2020 vide Annexure-E.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as the learned HCGP and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. Facts reveal from the records, which would be
necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, are:
The land in question was purchased by the ancestors of
respondent No.4 from the ancestors of the petitioner under a
registered sale deed dated 04.01.1982. On the strength of
the said registered sale deed, the revenue records of the land
in question were entered in the name of the ancestors of the
fourth respondent and subsequently in the name of the
fourth respondent. This entry was questioned by the
petitioner before the Tahsildar, who entertained petitioner's
application and directed to enter his name in the revenue
records of the land in question vide his order dated
10.06.2015. The same was questioned by the fourth
respondent before the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed
the appeal on 28.02.2020 vide Annexure-C and set aside the
order passed by the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner had filed a revision under Section 136(3) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Deputy
Commissioner who, vide his order dated 03.03.2022 as per
Annexure-E dismissed the revision and has confirmed the
order of the Assistant Commissioner. It is under these
circumstances, the petitioner is before this court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has disputed the sale deed and he had earlier filed
O.S.No.90/1988 challenging the sale deed dated 04.01.1982
and the said suit was dismissed by the trial court and as
against the same, the petitioner had preferred
R.A.No.15/2000. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent
had filed a separate suit in O.S.No.230/1993 for declaration
of his title and also for injunction and the said suit was
dismissed and it is in this background, he had withdrawn
R.A.No.15/2000. Thereafterwards, the fourth respondent
had filed R.A.No.41/2007 challenging the decree passed in
O.S.No.230/1993 and said appeal was allowed by the first
appellate court and thereby the relief sought for in
O.S.No.230/1993 for declaring the fourth respondent's title in
respect of the land in question and also for a decree of
injunction was granted. The judgment and decree passed in
R.A.No.41/2007 was challenged in R.S.A.No.7120/2008
before this court and this court had dismissed the second
appeal and thereby confirmed the order passed in
R.A.No.41/2007. In effect, the fourth respondent's title in
respect of the land in question has been declared on the
strength of the registered sale deed dated 04.01.1982 and
there is also a decree of perpetual injunction granted in his
favour in respect of the land in question. He also submits
that this court while disposing of R.S.A.No.7120/2008 had
reserved liberty to the petitioner to file necessary application
for recalling the order passed in R.A.No.15/2000 and
pursuant to such liberty, an application was also filed, but the
same was dismissed by the first appellate court and as
against the same, he has filed W.P.No.204397/2018, which is
pending consideration before this court. He further submits
that the appeal was filed by the fourth respondent before the
second respondent after a delay of nearly three years and
the second respondent has condoned the said delay without
any valid reasons. He submits that having regard to the
dispute between the parties with regard to the genuineness
of the sale deed, the Revenue Authorities could not have
entered the name of the fourth respondent in the revenue
records of the land in question. Accordingly, he prays to
allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the fourth
respondent submits that the title of the fourth respondent in
respect of the land in question has been already declared
pursuant to the suit instituted by him in O.S.No.230/1993
and such a declaration has been confirmed by this court in
R.S.A.No.7120/2008. He submits that on the strength of the
registered sale deed as well as the declaration of his title by
the competent civil court, the fourth respondent is entitled to
get his name entered in the revenue records of the land in
question and the authorities are therefore justified in passing
the order Annexure-C.
6. Learned HCGP appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 to 3 has also argued in support of the impugned order
and has prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. It is not in dispute that the ancestors of the
petitioner had executed a registered sale deed in respect of
the land in question in favour of the ancestors of the fourth
respondent. The suit instituted by the petitioner challenging
the said sale deed in O.S.No.90/1988 was dismissed and
subsequently the appeal filed in R.A.No.15/2000 challenging
the decree in O.S.No.90/1988 was also dismissed as
withdrawn. On the other hand, pursuant to the judgment
and decree passed in R.A.No.41/2007, the relief sought for in
O.S.No.230/1993 by the fourth respondent to declare his title
and also for a perpetual injunction in respect of the land in
question was granted and the said judgment and decree has
been confirmed by this court in R.S.A.No.7120/2008.
Therefore, as on this date, the fact remains that there is a
registered sale deed in respect of the land in question
executed by the petitioner's ancestors in favour of the
ancestors of the fourth respondent and based on the said
registered sale deed, the title of the fourth respondent has
been declared in respect of the land in question by a
competent civil court and such a declaration has been
confirmed by this court in R.S.A.No.7120/2008.
8. Under these circumstances, I find no illegality or
irregularity in the orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and
2, which are questioned in this writ petition. Therefore, I find
no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed. However, it is made clear that in the event the
petitioner is succeeding in getting the relief sought for by him
in O.S.No.90/1988 wherein the validity of the sale deed
executed in respect of the land in question is questioned, the
revenue entries will be subject to such outcome.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
CT-SMP
