Karnataka High Court
Mrs Rahmatunnissa vs Mr Safdar Baig on 29 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.908 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
IN
W.P. No.3102 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
MRS. RAHMATUNNISSA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
D/O LATE ABDUL RAZACK
GRAND DAUGHTER OF MASTHAN SAB
@ KYALANUR MASTHAN SAB
W/O MR. UBEDULLA SHARIFF
NO.16/6, 3RD CROSS
DR. TCM ROYAN ROAD
BENGALURU 560 053.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. VINOD REDDY V, ADV.,)
AND:
1. MR. SAFDAR BAIG
S/O MR. MEERAN BAIG
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1(a) MRS. SHAHEDA BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
W/O LATE DAFDER BAIG.
1(b) MRS. KISHWER JEHAN BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
W/O MR. AFTAB BAIG
2
D/O LATE MR. SAFDER BAIG.
1(c) MR. ASAD ULLA BAIG
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE MR. SAFDER BAIG.
1(d) MRS. KHYSER JEHAN BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O MR. MOHAMMED TANVEER ULLA KHAN
D/O LATE MR. SAFDER BAIG.
NO.1(a) TO 1(d) ARE
R/AT II FLOOR
SHAHEDA COMPLEX
NEAR ANJANI THEATRE
N.R. EXTENSION
CHINAMANI 563125.
1(e) MR. KAUSAR JEHAN BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
W/O MR. MOHAMMED IMRAN
D/O LATE MR. SAFDER BAIG
R/O NO. D2, 204, MAZYAD VILLAGE
MOHAMMED BIN ZAYED CITY
ABUDHABI UAE 307-501.
2. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
STATE OF KARNATKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
CHINAMANI TALUK
CHINTAMANI CITY-563125.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHICKBALLAPUR CITY-563101.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
3
CHICKBALLAPUR CITY-562101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. P.S. BABU NARAYANA, ADV., FOR C/R
MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2, R3, & R5)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2021 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.
NO.3102/2017 (KLR-RES) BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND
CONFIRM THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND
5, ON GROUNDS.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this intra-court appeal, the appellant has assailed
the validity of the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by learned
Single judge, by which writ petition preferred by respondent
No.1(a) to (3) has been disposed of.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated out that the name of respondent Nos.1(a) to (e) was
recorded in the revenue records on the basis of a registered
gift deed dated 10.07.1962. However the Deputy
Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 136(3) of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 directed that the name of
the appellant be recorded in the revenue records. Being
aggrieved, respondent No.1(a) to (e) preferred an appeal
before the Assistant Commissioner, which was dismissed.
The said orders were not where under challenge in a writ
petition before the learned Single judge. The learned Single
judge by an order dated 04.082021 has allowed the writ
petition and has directed, in the revenue records name of
respondent No.1(a) to (e) shall be restored. However, the
appellant has been granted the liberty to seek redressal of
his rights in a civil suit. In the aforesaid factual background
this appeal has been filed.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned
counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that in pursuance of
the liberty granted by learned single judge, the appellant has
already filed a civil suit, in which he has questioned the
validity of the registered gift deed dated 10.07.1962. The
rights of the parties have to be adjudicated in the civil suit. It
is well settled in law that revenue entries are not documents
of title - to state that the entries in favour of respondent
No.1(a) to (E) shall be subject to the outcome of the civil suit
.
With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
