Karnataka High Court
Pandurang S/O Narasing Kadam vs State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
WP No. 103083 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 103083 OF 2015 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. PANDURANG S/O NARASING KADAM
AGE 75 YEARS,
OCC BUSINESS
R/O PLOT NO 263 SCHEME NO 40 JAYANAGAR
HANUMAN NAGAR BELAGAVI
DIST BELAGAVI 590001
2. SUNANDABAI W/O PANDURANG KADAM
AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PLOT NO. 263 SCHEME NO. 40 JAYANAGAR,
HANUMAN NAGAR BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.D.RAVIKUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
J
MAMATHA AND:
Digitally signed
by J MAMATHA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Date:
2023.01.21
M.S. BUILDING
10:35:20 +0530
REP. BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU - 01
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECRODS
CITY SURVEY BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590001
3. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND EX-OFFICE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
-2-
WP No. 103083 of 2015
BELAGAVI
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 590001
5. PARASHURAM S/O BHARMAJI NANDIHALLI
AGE: 77 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GORAL GALLI,
YALLUR,
BELAGAVI DIST - 590001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADV., FOR R5.,)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
05.03.2015 PASSED IN REV/SR/32/2013-14 PASSED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ
petition are that, petitioners claim to be the owner in
possession of schedule property mentioned at Annexure-A to
the writ petition to the extent of 4800 sq.ft of Shastri Nagar,
WP No. 103083 of 2015
Belagavi. It is further stated that respondent No.5 is asserting
his right and title in respect of the schedule property on the
basis of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.509/1999
and in O.S.No.173/2002 and thereby, sale deed dated
28/8/2002 has been executed by the vendor of the petitioner
herein-Smt.Indubai Nesarkar in favour of the 5th respondent.
It is the case of the petitioners that, petitioners having acquired
right and title in respect of the schedule property mentioned in
the writ petition in terms of the sale deed produced at
Annexure-A, the 2nd respondent instead of directing the
respondent No.5 to get his right adjudicated before the
competent Civil Court, has allowed the revision petition and
being aggrieved by impugned order dated 5/3/2015, passed by
the 2nd respondent (Annexure-G), the present writ petition is
filed.
3. Sri. D.Ravikumar Gokakakar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned
order passed by the 2nd respondent is contrary to law as the
petitioners herein have made out the case before the
respondent-authorities that the 5th respondent herein has no
WP No. 103083 of 2015
right in respect of the subject land and despite the same, the
impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent. He
further contended that, the 2nd respondent herein ought to
have directed the 5th respondent to approach the competent
Civil Court for declaratory relief and despite doing so, the 2nd
respondent has passed the impugned order, setting aside the
mutation entry made on 4/2/2011, which requires to be
interfered with in this writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.5 argued that respondent No.5 has purchased
the schedule property as mentioned in the sale deed dated
28/8/2002 and by virtue of judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.509.1999 and in O.S.No.173/2002 on the file of I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi and therefore, he sought to justify
the action of the 2nd respondent herein. The said submission
was supported by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
5. In the light of the submissions made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the
writ papers, it would indicate that, the petitioners herein claim
to be the owners in possession of the schedule mentioned as
WP No. 103083 of 2015
per registered sale deed dated 1/1/2004 (Annexure-A). I have
also noticed that the 5th respondent herein has purchased 11
guntas of land from the vendor of the petitioners herein as per
the judgment and decree passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Belagavi in O.S.No.173/2002, which has reached
finality. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, if at
all the petitioners herein is challenging/disputing the title of the
5th respondent herein, no interference is called for in this
petition. It is open for the petitioners herein to approach
competent Civil Court, seeking declaratory relief in respect of
the same. In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent is
justified in passing the impugned order dated 5/3/2015 and
therefore, I do not find any merit in writ petition. Accordingly,
writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB
