Karnataka High Court
Smt.Nazukma W/O.Khasimsab Multani vs The Regional Commissioner on 14 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
WP No. 105273 of 2017
C/W WP No. 100346 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 105273 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 100346 OF 2014
IN WP NO.105273/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAZUKMA W/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. SAIDAMMA W/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. MEERAMMA W/O. RAOSAHEB MULTANI,
SINCE DECEASED HER LRS.
3A RAOSAHEB S/O. DASTAGIR MULTANI,
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
Date: R/O: HANAJANATTI-591309,
2023.12.22
12:34:01 +0530
TAL: HUKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3B SMT. RESHAMA W/O. UMMARFAROOQ JAMADAR,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:KOUJALGI-591307,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3C KUM. SAKEENA D/O. RAOSAHEB MULTANI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
3D KUM. SALMA D/O. RAOSAHEB MULTANI,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
NOS. (C) AND (D) ARE MINORS AND ARE
REPRESENTED BY M/G FATHER
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
WP No. 105273 of 2017
C/W WP No. 100346 of 2014
RAOSAHEB DASTAGIR, MULTANI,
R/O. HANAJANATTI-591309,
TAL: HUKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. BANUBI W/O. RAMZAN MULTANI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BELAVI VILLAGE,
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SRI. SHAMANSAB S/O. IMAMASAB MULTANI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALAGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SRI. MEERASAB S/O. IMAMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SRI. DASTAGIRSAB S/O. MEERASAB MULTANI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
7A. SMT. RAZIYABI W/O. DASTAGIRSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7B. SMT. FATIMA W/O. DASTAGIRSAB MULTANI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SULTANPUR VILLAGE,
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7C. SMT. AASMA W/O. SHAHANAVAZ SAJJU,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KHANJAR GALLI, BELAGAVI.
7D. SHABBIR S/O. DASTAGIRSAB MULTANI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7E. ALI NAMAZ S/O. DASTAGIRSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
WP No. 105273 of 2017
C/W WP No. 100346 of 2014
AND:
1. THE TAHASILDAR,
GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. BALIMA W/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 99 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SRI. MEERASAB S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SRI. BIYAMABI S/O. RAJESAB KUNDARAGI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALADAGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SRI. PEERSAB S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
5A. SMT. MUMTAZBI W/O. PEERSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI-591307, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5B. SMT. BEGUM W/O. DASTAGIRSAB MULTANI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI-591307, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5C. SMT. GAJARA W/O. SAIFUDDIN BEPARI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KALADAGI-587204,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
5D. MEHABOOB S/O. PEERSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI-591307, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5E. YASIN S/O. PEERSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI-591307,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
WP No. 105273 of 2017
C/W WP No. 100346 of 2014
6. SRI. NOORSAB S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SMT. MEHABOOB W/O. RAJESAB WALIKAR,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. RAJESAB S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
9. SRI. HUSAINSAB S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
10. SRI. LADAKHAN S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV. FOR RESP. NO. 3 TO 10)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 DELETED)
(SERVICE NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS NO. 5(A), 5(B) TO 5(E) ARE
SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BE ISSUED AND THEREBY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI IN NO. RB/RTA/30/2014-15
DATED 20/04/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND THEREBY
DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION OF THE PETITIONER MAY
KINDLY BE QUASHED AND THE REVISION PETITION BE ALLOWED
AND THE MUTATION/ENTRY OF NAME OF LATE KHASIMSAB
LADKHAN MULTANI BE ORDERED AND DELETED FROM THE
REVENUE RECORDS OF THE SY.NO.205/1+2/1.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
WP No. 105273 of 2017
C/W WP No. 100346 of 2014
IN WP NO.100346/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAZUKMA W/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. SAIDAMMA W/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. MEERAMMA W/O. RAOSAHEB MULTANI,
SINCE DECEASED HER LRS.
3A RAOSAHEB S/O. DASTAGIR MULTANI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANAJANATTI-591309,
TAL: HUKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3B SMT. RESHAMA W/O. UMMARFAROOQ JAMADAR,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:KOUJALGI-591307,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3C KUM. SAKEENA D/O. RAOSAHEB MULTANI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
3D KUM. SALMA D/O. RAOSAHEB MULTANI,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
NOS. (C) AND (D) ARE MINORS AND ARE
REPRESENTED BY M/G FATHER
RAOSAHEB DASTAGIR, MULTANI,
R/O. HANAJANATTI-591309,
TAL: HUKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. BANUBI W/O. RAMZAN MULTANI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BELAVI VILLAGE,
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SRI. IMAMSAB S/O. MEERSAB MULATNI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
WP No. 105273 of 2017
C/W WP No. 100346 of 2014
5. SRI. SHAMANSAB S/O. IMAMASAB MULTANI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALAGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SRI. MEERASAB S/O. IMAMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SRI. DASTAGIRSAB S/O. MEERASAB MULTANI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
7A SMT. RAZIYABI W/O. DASTAGIRSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7B SMT. FATIMA W/O. DASTAGIRSAB MULTANI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SULTANPUR VILLAGE,
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7C SMT. AASMA W/O. SHAHANAVAZ SAJJU,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KHANJAR GALLI, BELAGAVI.
7D SHABBIR S/O. DASTAGIRSAB MULTANI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7E ALI NAMAZ S/O. DASTAGIRSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI.
2. THE ASSISTAND COMMISSIONER,
BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
WP No. 105273 of 2017
C/W WP No. 100346 of 2014
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SMT. BALIMA W/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
RESPONDENT NO-5 HAS DIED AND HER LRS,
ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT
NO.6 TO 13).
6. SRI. MEERASAB S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SRI. BIYAMABI S/O. RAJESAB KUNDARAGI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALADAGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. SRI. PEERSAB S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
8A SMT. MUMTAZBI W/O. PEERSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI-591307, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8B SMT. BEGUM W/O. DASTAGIRSAB MULTANI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KOUJALGI-591307, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8C SMT. GAJARA W/O. SAIFUDDIN BEPARI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KALADAGI-587204,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
8D MEHABOOB S/O. PEERSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI-591307, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
WP No. 105273 of 2017
C/W WP No. 100346 of 2014
8E YASIN S/O. PEERSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI-591307,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
9. SRI. NOORSAB S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
10. SMT. MEHABOOB W/O. RAJESAB WALIKAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
11. RAJESAB S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
12. SRI. HUSAINSAB S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
13. SRI. LADAKHAN S/O. KHASIMSAB MULTANI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KOUJALGI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESP. NO.1 TO 4)
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV. FOR RESP. NO. 6 TO 13)
(RESPONDENT NO.5- PETITION STANDS ABATED)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.8(A) TO 8(E) ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BE ISSUED AND THEREBY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-G IN NO.RCB/BGM/RA-
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
WP No. 105273 of 2017
C/W WP No. 100346 of 2014
7/2012-13 DT: 30/10/2013 MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These petitions are filed questioning the order dated
30.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.1-Regional
Commissioner, Belagavi, who in terms of the order at
Annexure-G has allowed the revision petition filed by the
contesting respondents No.5 to 13.
2. The contesting respondents invoked the Section
118-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the
Act, 1961') challenging the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Bailhongal, wherein vide order dated
30.12.2011 at Annexure-C, the Assistant Commissioner,
Bailhongal has allowed the appeal filed by the present
petitioners challenging the certification of mutation entry
No.4327 of Koujalagi. The said mutation is certified recording
the name of the State in Column No.9 pursuant to the
Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974 in respect of
21 acres 6 guntas of land which is the subject matter of the
present petitions.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
3. The petitioners urged that the land in question was
originally a part of Sy.No.205/1+2 measuring 27 acres 18
guntas. The predecessors of the petitioners sold 06 acre 12
guntas of land in the aforementioned survey number to the
predecessors of the contesting respondents under the
registered Sale Deed dated 27.01.1956. Thus, it is their claim
that their predecessors of the petitioners retained remaining 21
acre 06 guntas of land in the aforementioned land. It is also
submitted that an application is filed by the petitioners'
predecessors for regrant of land and the land was re-granted in
their favour to the extent of 21 acre 06 guntas. To substantiate
their contentions, the petitioners have produced the copy of
mutation entry ME.No.2099 of Koujalagi village by way of
additional document.
4. It is also their case that the predecessors of the
contesting respondents applied for re-grant of land, and the
land was regranted to them vide order dated 01.11.1958. It is
stated that the said re-grant is in respect of land measuring 06
acres 12 guntas purchased by them. The petitioners have no
claim over the said land which is regranted to the predecessor
of the contesting respondents.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
5. It is further claim of the petitioners that the land in
question in this petition was never under the cultivation by the
contesting respondents as tenants or by anyone else, as such,
the land could not have been declared as having vested in
favour of the State. It is also their case none filed the
application claiming occupancy right in respect of said land
measuring 21 acres 6 guntas. Thus, the petitioners contend
that the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi is not justified in
allowing the revision filed by contesting respondents and not
justified in setting aside the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner.
6. The petitioners also contend that the Assistant
Commissioner is justified in setting aside the mutation entry
No.4327 and restoring the names of the petitioners in respect
of aforementioned property measuring 21 acre 06 guntas which
remain unsold by the predecessors.
7. It is also relevant to note that the contesting
respondents No.2 to 10 in Writ Petition no.105273/2017 have
made a claim in respect of 06 acres of land in Sy.No.205/1+2/1
alleging that there is an alleged agreement of sale in their
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
favour. The entry is made at ME.No.4413 based on alleged
agreement for sale in respect of 6 acres of land and the same is
later cancelled by the order dated 09.11.1974. Despite
cancellation of the mutation entry, the names of respondents
No.2 to 10 in Writ Petition No.105273/2017 continued in the
record of rights till the year 2012-13. Noticing this, the
petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner
under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
(for short, 'the Act, 1964'). The Deputy Commissioner after
considering the contentions raised by the parties has passed an
order deferring further orders in the revision petition on the
premise that the Writ Petition No.100346/2014 is pending
before this Court.
8. The learned counsel Sri Ravi S. Balikai appearing
for petitioners would contend that apart from the property
purchased, respondents No.2 to 10 do not have any right over
the property bearing Sy.No.205/1+2/1. It is his claim that
assuming that there is an agreement of sale in favour of
contesting respondents, the said agreement of sale does not
create any right, title and interest over the property. It is also
his contention that the ME No.4413 based on the agreement of
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
sale is not certified and same is cancelled holding that there is
no transaction creating the right in favour of the contesting
respondents. Thus, he would contend that the Deputy
Commissioner is not justified in not entertaining the revision
petition and passing an order holding that the subject matter of
the dispute is pending consideration in another Writ Petition
No.100346/2014(LR).
9. It is urged that the Writ Petition No.100346/2014
(LR) is filed in respect of property measuring 21 acres 6 guntas
which is said to have been vested with the Government which
is not the subject matter of Writ Petition No.105273/2017. The
subject matter of Writ Petition No.105273/2017 is the property
bearing Sy.no.205/1+2/2 measuring 06 acres 12 guntas on
which the claim is made based on the agreement of sale.
Hence, the Deputy Commissioner is not justified in holding that
the petition cannot be considered on merit in view of the
pendency of Writ Petition No.100346/2014(LR).
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred
to the documents filed along with the memo namely, copy of
sale deed, RTC extract and a mutation entry recording re-grant.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
11. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents
would submit that the land is rightly held to be vested with the
State after commencement of the Amendment Act of 1974 and
the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to grant the
land. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner setting
aside the M.E.No.4327 amounts to grant of land by the
Assistant Commissioner, which is without jurisdiction.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the if the
petitioners were the tenants they ought to have filed Form-7.
Since they have not filed Form-7, there cannot be any grant of
the land in favour of the petitioners.
13. As far as M.E.No.4413 is concerned, the learned
counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the
contesting respondents are in possession of the property
pursuant to the agreement for sale in respect of 6 acres. Thus,
he would contend that as the contesting respondents are in
possession of the property, the petitioners are not entitled to
any relief in respect of the above said 6 acres. Though them
alleged agreement for sale is not produced, learned counsel
would refer to M.E.No.4413, to substantiate his contention that
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
there is an agreement for sale and pursuant to the agreement
for sale, they are put in possession of the property.
14. Sri.Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State would contend
that an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under
Section 118(2)(b) of the Act, 1964 is not maintainable. The
petitioners ought to have invoked Section 49 or Section 136 of
the Act as far as M.E.No.4413 is concerned.
15. This court has considered the contentions raised at
the bar.
16. It is well settled principle of law that agreement for
sale does not confer any right, title and interest over the
property. The mutation entry No.4413 based on the alleged
agreement for sale is not certified and it was cancelled vide
order dated 09.11.1974. This being the position, the Deputy
Commissioner was in error in holding that the petition cannot
be considered on merits in view of pendency of Writ Petition
No.100346/2014 (LR).
17. There is no dispute over the fact that the extent of
land bearing Sy.No.205/1+2/1 at one point of time measured
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
27 acres 18 guntas. The contesting respondents have
purchased 06 acres 12 guntas under a registered sale deed
dated 27.01.1956. Thus, the petitioners retained 21 acres 06
guntas of land. The contesting respondents are now claiming
right in respect of 06 acres of land based on the alleged
agreement for sale. As already noticed, agreement for sale is
not produced and the agreement for sale is not admitted.
M.E.No.4413 based on the alleged agreement for sale is
cancelled. The alleged agreement is not registered. However,
names of all the contesting respondents continued in the
property records till 2013. Under these circumstances, revision
is filed before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section
136(3) of the Act. As already noticed, the Deputy
Commissioner has not considered the revision on merits on the
premise that the writ petition is pending consideration.
18. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the
order of the Deputy Commissioner is erroneous and liable to be
set aside and accordingly, the order dated 20.04.2017 marked
at Annexure-F is quashed.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
19. As far as the order passed by the Regional
Commissioner, Belagavi dated 30.10.2013 marked at
Annexure-G, it is to be noticed that Regional Commissioner has
set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who has
accepted the petitioners' appeal under Section 118(2)(b) of the
Act, 1964.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that the appeal under Section 118(2)(b) is not maintainable as
no order is passed by the Tahasildar.
21. On perusal of the Mutation Entry No.4327, it is
apparent that mutation is certified recording the name of the
State in column 9 of the RTC based on the order passed by the
Tahasildar, Gokak. On a reading of Section 118(2)(b) of the
Act, 1964, the appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner
against the order passed by the Tahasildar. Since the disputed
mutation entry reveals that the mutation entry is certified
based on the order passed by the Tahasildar, the appeal lies to
the Assistant Commissioner. The Regional Commissioner is not
justified in holding that the order of the Assistant Commissioner
is erroneous. Even otherwise what is required to be noticed is
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
whether the land has vested under the State after
commencement of the amendment to the Act in the year 1974.
Section 44 of the Act is very clear. Only those lands which are
in lawful cultivation and possession of the tenant immediately
before 1974, will vest in the State Government. However, no
records are produced to show that a person was cultivating the
property as lawful tenant immediately before 1974. Admittedly,
no person has filed application claiming occupancy right. The
contesting respondents are also not claiming to be the tenant in
respect of the disputed land. The record of right produced for
the year 1972-73 and 1973-74 would reveal names of
petitioners' predecessors and respondents' predecessors as well
as one Bijaguppi. Against the name of Bijagatti, an entry is
made to the effect Tevu Karar for Rs.300/-.
22. Thus, from the aforementioned entries, it is
apparent that nobody was cultivating the property as tenant.
Admittedly, the contesting respondents claimed right over the
property on the basis of alleged agreement of sale which is not
produced. One Bijjuguppi whose name is shown in the property
records has not filed Form No.7. It is submitted that the word
'Tevu Karar' implies a mortgage. This being the position, this
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
Court is of the view that the land was not tenanted land and
land could not have been vested in favour of the State. These
aspects have not been considered by the Regional
Commissioner.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also refer
to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.100042/2023 (KLR-RR/SUR), dated 19.07.2023,
Sri Siddayya S/o.Mahadevayya Hiremath vs. The Principal
Secretary Department of Revenue and Others. In paragraph
Nos.8 and 9 of the said Judgment, this Court observed as
under:
"8. The petitioner claims to be the owner in
possession of the land in question and according to
him, the land in question is his ancestors property
and the revenue records of the land in question
stood in the name of his ancestors right from the
year 1944 onwards. The petitioner alleges that in a
family partition, the land in question was allotted to
his share and ever since then he is in possession and
cultivation of the land in question. The name of the
State Government appears to have been entered in
Column Nos.9 & 11 of the revenue records of the
land in question after coming into force of the
Karnataka Act No.1 of 1974, on the strength of
Section 44 of the Act of 1974. It is not in dispute
that Form No.7 or Form No.7A has not been filed
under the provision of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 in respect of the land in question. Section
44(1) of the Act of 1961 reads as follows :
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
"44. Vesting of lands in State Government.-
(1) All lands held by or in the possession of
tenants (including tenants against whom a decree
or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption
is made or issued) immediately prior to the date of
commencement of the Amendment Act, other than
lands held by them under leases permitted under
Section 5, shall, with effect on and from the said
date, stand transferred to and vest in the State
Government."
9. It is trite that the question whether the land
within the meaning of Section 2-A(18) of the Act of
1961, has vested with the State Government or not
as provided under Section 44 of the Act of 1961 has
to be adjudicated only by the Land Tribunal and not
by the revenue authorities. This Court in the case of
Venkappa Shettigar Vs. The Speical Tahsildar
reported in 1989(1) Kar L.J. 14 has held that the
Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to hold that the land
had vested with the State Government and the said
jurisdiction was only with the Land Tribunal
constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1961."
24. As can be noticed that the order to the effect that
the land is vested with the State Government is passed by the
Tahashildar, who had no jurisdiction. Such an order can be
passed only by the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal has not
passed any such order holding that the land bearing
Sy.No.205/1+2 measuring 21 acres 6 guntas in dispute is
vested with the State. Under these circumstances, this Court
proceeds to pass the following :
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 20.04.2017 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-K
in Writ Petition No.105273/2017 and the
order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the 1st
respondent as per Annexure-G in Writ
Petition No.100346/2014 are quashed.
(iii) It is further made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the claim of the
petitioners and the claim of the contesting
respondents over the present possession of
the property based on the alleged
agreement of sale, which is disputed by the
petitioner. If any such agreement for sale is
executed, it is for the respondents to work
out their remedy as advised under law.
(iv) This order should not be construed as an order
affecting the rights of the contesting
respondents in respect of 06 acres
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14698
purchased under the Sale Deed dated
27.01.1956.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKK/KGK,ct-an
