Karnataka High Court
Dr. Prasad S/O Ashok Sasnoor vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 16 June, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.200292/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.200292/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
DR. PRASAD S/O ASHOK SASNOOR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER &
AGRICULTURE,
R/O SWAMY CHIDANAND LANE,
STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-560 101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI, RAVI. B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. KRISHNAPPA S/O HANAMANTH CHOUDHARI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HITTINHALLI,
TQ. & DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586101.
3. SMT. SUSHILABAI
W/O KRISHNAPPA KUBARADDI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O HITTINHALLI,
TQ. & DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2 W.P.No.200292/2021
4. PRAKASH S/O NARASINGAPPA CHOUDHARI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NEAR SHAHAPET GANAPATI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPURA-596101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R.TENGLI, AGA FOR R1;
BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3 & R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT A
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN FILE
NO.RTS/REV/10/2019-20 AND RTS/REV/11/2019-20 DATED
09.12.2019 AS AT ANNEXURE-L, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BIJAPUR, AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY IN
NATURE; A WRIT A MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 TO RESTORE THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER TILL THE
ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER IN DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred the instant writ
petition with a prayer to quash the order dated
09.12.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide
Annexure-L and further direct the respondents to restore
the revenue entries in respect of the land in question in
his favour.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had
purchased the land bearing Sy.No.204/2B measuring 3
acres 25 guntas and Sy.No.204/1D measuring 1 acre 10
guntas including 7 guntas kharab situated at Hittinahalli
village, Tq. & District Vijayapura under two separate
registered sale deed dated 18.11.2016 and 16.12.2016
from one Prakash. The aforesaid lands were earlier sold
by one Smt.Shusheela Bai to the petitioner's vendor
Prakash during pendency of O.S.No.311/2003 filed by
the second respondent as against the respondent No.3
and her mother O.S.No.311/2003 was filed by the
second respondent herein for declaration of his title in
respect of the land in question and also for
consequential relief of permanent injunction. The said
suit was dismissed and the counter claim made by the
defendants was allowed by the trial court vide judgment
and decree dated 7th April 2007 and being aggrieved by
the same, the second respondent herein had filed
R.A.No.147/2008, which was partly allowed and the first
appellate court while confirming the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court insofar as declaration of
second respondent's title is concerned, had set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court insofar it
relates to allowing the counter claim of the defendants
in the suit. As against the said judgment and decree
passed by the first appellate court,
R.S.A.No.200339/2016 and R.S.A.No.200318/2016 filed
by the plaintiff as well as the defendants are pending
consideration before this court.
4. The revenue entries, which were made in the
name of the petitioner herein on the strength of the sale
deed executed in his favour, was questioned by the
second respondent herein before the Assistant
Commissioner, who had dismissed the said appeal and
in the revision filed by him as against the said order, the
Deputy Commissioner has set aside the entries made in
favour of the petitioner on the ground that he had
purchased the land in question during the pendency of
the civil dispute between the respondent No.2 and
respondent No.3 herein. Being aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
he has got a registered sale deed executed by the
respondent No.4, who had purchased the land in
question from respondent No.3 and therefore, the
Revenue Authorities are bound by the same. He
submits that the suit filed by the second respondent for
declaration of his title and for consequential relief of
injunction has been dismissed by the trial court and the
same has been upheld by the first appellate court and
therefore, as on this date, there is no title declared in
favour of the second defendant and hence, the Revenue
Authorities were not justified in rejecting to enter the
name of the petitioner in the revenue records of the land
in question in whose name there is a registered sale
deed as on this date.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent submits that only to defeat the rights
of the second respondent, the sale deed was executed
by the third respondent herein, who is a defendant in
the suit. He submits that the second defendant/third
respondent herein had no absolute right to sell the land
in question in favour of the vendor of the petitioner and
therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in
setting aside the entries, which are made in the name of
the petitioner on the strength of the sale deed, which
had come into existence during the pendency of the civil
dispute between the second and third respondents
herein.
7. I have carefully appreciated the arguments
addressed on both sides and also perused the material
available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the
second respondent herein for declaration of his title and
for consequential relief of injunction in respect of the
land in question has been dismissed and the said
judgment and decree has been confirmed by the first
appellate court in the regular appeal filed by the second
respondent herein. The counter claim made by the third
respondent in the suit, which was allowed by the trial
court, has been set aside by the first appellate court on
the ground that the defendants had specifically
contended that there was a prior partition and therefore,
they were not entitled for counter claim.
9. Be that as it may, as against the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court as well as the first
appellate court, the plaintiff as well as the defendants in
O.S.No.311/2003 have preferred two separate second
appeals before this court, which are pending in
R.S.A.No.200339/2016 and R.S.A.No.200318/2016.
The fact remains that the petitioner has purchased the
land in question for a valid consideration under a
registered sale deed. Therefore, I find some justification
in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Revenue Authorities were required to
consider the said registered document. The Deputy
Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the claim of
the petitioner to enter his name in the land in question
only for the reason that the petitioner had purchased the
land in question during the pendency of the civil dispute
between respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. Under the
circumstances, I am of the considered view that the said
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, the following order:
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated
09.12.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Vijayapura vide Annexure-L is set aside. The Revenue
Authorities are directed to enter the name of the
petitioner in the revenue records of the land in question
along with the names of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein.
It is made clear that the said entries made shall be
subject to the outcome of the R.S.A.No.200339/2016
and R.S.A.No.200318/2016, which are pending
consideration before this court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
