Mr Ashish Chaturvedi vs Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 12684 Kant

                          1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                      BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

 WRIT PETITION NO.17282 OF 2021(KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR ASHISH CHATURVEDI,
S/O RANVEER KUMAR CHATURVEDI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA,
IST MAIN YELAHANAKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SMT. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
   BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
   BENGALURU-560 001.

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
   DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
   DODDABALLAPURA-561 203.

3. TAHSILDAR,
   DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVENAHALLI,
   BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

4. SRI. D. S. GOPALAKRISHNA BHATTAR,
   S/O LATE SETHURAMACHAR,
   R/AT NO.599 SRI VENUGOPAL SWAMY,
   TEMPLE ROAD DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
   DEVENAHALLI,
   BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

5. V NARAYANASWAMY,
   S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA,
   R/AT PUTTAPPA GUDI BEEDHI,
                                  2

  KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
  BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
    SRI.N.R.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
        R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 ON
10.08.2021 IN RP NO.166/2020 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A
AND DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 TO REGISTER THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER IN COLUMN-9 AS IT STOOD BEFORE THE
PASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                              ORDER

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for

assailing the order dated 10.08.2021 made by the

Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Learned SR.

Advocate Mr. Shreevathsa appearing for the petitioner

argues that the said order could not have been made

without making his client a party to the Revision Petition

since he holds a registered Sale Deed dated 07.11.2020

in respect of the very same land.

2. Learned AGA appearing for the official

Respondents and the advocates appearing for the private

Respondents together oppose the petition making

submission in justification of the impugned order

contending that ordinarily in disputes like this, the

person claiming title under the registered instrument

should approach the Civil Court for redressal of his

grievance. So contending, they seek dismissal of the

writ petition.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the petition papers, this

Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the

matter inasmuch as, the entries in the Revenue Records

have presumptive value under Section 133 of the 1964

Act and therefore, more often than not, they are acted

upon by the State Agencies while notifying acquisition

and the Lending institutions. Further, the Authorities are

bound to make entries in the Revenue Records in terms

of the registered Conveyances which are presumed to be

valid in the light of Apex Court decision in PREM SINGH &

ORS VS. BIRBAL & ORS. (2006) 5 SCC 353.

4. If above be so, the person holding a

registered Conveyance in respect of the subject land to

which entries in question relate assumes the character of

a 'proper party' if not a 'necessary party' in the light of

RAZIA BEGUM vs. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM, AIR 1958

SC 886. An order passed without having the

proper/necessary party arrayed, is bad in law, to say the

least. Now that in W.P.No.1556/2021 (LR), the rejection

of claim of Respondent tenant (so called) for the grant of

land under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms

Act, 1961 having been affirmed by the KAT, the

challenge thereto also has been negatived by this court

this day in his W.P.No.5152/2019. The land in question

has been treated as 'Devadaya Inam land' by the KAT

and finding of the KAT is affirmed by this Court in the

said judgment.

5. In the fitness of things, the impugned order is

liable to be set aside and matter needs to be remitted to

the portals of Deputy Commissioner so that all the

stakeholders including the Petitioner shall be heard and

thereafter, a decision is handed. This Course would do

justice to everyone, as rightly contended by learned Sr.

Counsel for the Petitioner.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition

succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the

impugned order and the matter is remitted to the portals

of the Deputy Commissioner to hear afresh after

permitting impleadment of the Petitioner to the Revision

Petition, if such impleadment is sought for within six

weeks.

Since Deputy Commissioner's order is set aside, the

mutation of entries effected on that basis would also fall

to the ground as a pack of cards.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv