Karnataka High Court
Shankarsa Age:55 Years vs The Deputy Director Of Land ... on 27 January, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
No. 2463 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2463 OF 2008 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SHANKARSA AGE:55 YEARS
S/O KASHINATHSA JARATARGHAR
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD
HUBLI.
2. CHANDRAKANTH
S/O KASHINATHSA JARATARGHAR
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD
HUBLI.
3. MOHAN, S/O KASHINATHSA JARATARGHAR
AGE: 40 YERAS, OCC BUSINESS
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
J
MAMATHA CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD
HUBLI.
Digitally signed
by J MAMATHA
Date:
2023.01.31
11:29:45 4. DNANESHWAR
+0530
S/O KASHINATHASA JARATARGHAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD
HUBLI.
5. VISHWANATHSA
S/O NAGENDRASA JARATARGHAR
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS
-2-
No. 2463 of 2008
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD
HUBLI.
6. TULAJAPPA
S/O NAGENDRASA JARATARGHAR
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD
HUBLI.
7. SHRIKANTH
S/O NAGENDRASA JARATARGHAR
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD
HUBLI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. L. VANTI FOR SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI,
ADVOCATE FOR P1 TO 4 & P7; P5 & P6 - PETITION ABATED)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
NORTH DIVISION, BELGAUM.
3. SHANKARGOUDA RUDRAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MADLI, TQ:SHIGGAON, DIST:DHARWAD.
4. VENKATESH
S/O KASHINATHSA JARATARGHAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD, HUBLI.
-3-
No. 2463 of 2008
5. BALACHANDRASA
S/O NAGENDRASA JARATARGHAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD, HUBLI.
6. ASHOKSA, S/O NAGENDRASA JARATARGHAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD, HUBLI.
7. SUBHASH
S/O NAGENDRASA JARATARGHAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
CHOLINAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR ROAD, HUBLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. K. K. MULAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R5 & R6 - ABATED; R7 - DELETED; R3 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE J.D.L.R NORTH
DIVISION, BELGAUM/R2 IN REV/SR-31/07-08 DATED
31.12.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the
order passed by the JDLR North Division, Belgaum - respondent
No.2 herein, in REV/SR-31/07-08 dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure-F).
No. 2463 of 2008
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, the vendor of the
petitioner - Channabasanagouda, by registered sale deed dated
13.01.1988 sold the property in favour of the petitioners and
pursuant to the same, the mutation entry was effected in the name
of the petitioners on 13.01.1988. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has
challenged the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioners in
Appeal No.11/2007-08 before the Deputy Commissioner of Land
Records, Dharwad (ADLR), to delete the name of the vendor of the
petitioners - Channabasanagouda and to restore the name in his
favour. The said appeal filed by the respondent No.3 was
dismissed by the ADLR as per the order dated 20.08.2007
(Annexure-C). The said order of dismissal passed by the ADLR
was challenged by the 3rd respondent before the Joint Director of
Land Records (JDLR), North Division, Belgaum, in Revision
No.REV/SR-31/07-08. The JDLR by its order dated 31.12.2007 set
aside the order passed by the ADLR and as such, directed the
petitioners herein to approach the competent Civil Court for
redressal of their grievance. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners have presented this writ petition.
No. 2463 of 2008
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondents No.1 and 2. There is no representation on behalf of
respondents No.3 and 4.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contented that, the petitioners herein have purchased the property
in question by virtue of the sale deed dated 13.01.1988 from one
Channabasanagouda and in that view of the matter, the revenue
authorities ought to have entered the name of the petitioners in the
respective revenue records. Despite the same, the JDLR by the
impugned order directed the petitioners herein to approach the
competent Civil Court, which is not correct. In this regard he
places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of P.K.
Vasudevan v. Deputy Commissioner Of Kodagu District
reported in ILR 2002 KAR 4637.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate
sought to justify the impugned order passed by the JDLR.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, it is not in dispute that, by virtue of the registered sale deed
No. 2463 of 2008
dated 13.01.1988, the petitioners herein have purchased the land
in question from one Channabasanagouda. Taking into
consideration the language employed under Sections 128 and 129
of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, I am of the view that the
ADLR rightly given conclusion by entering the name of the
petitioners in the revenue records. However, the JDLR on
erroneous assumption of facts and law, has reversed the said
finding recorded by the ADLR, which is not correct and contrary to
above provisions. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 31.12.2007 passed
by the JDLR, North Division, Belgaum in
REV/SR-31/07-08, is set aside.
iii. The order dated 20.08.2007 passed by the
ADLR, Dharwad, in Appeal
No.CTS/RTS/AP.No.11/07-08 is restored on file.
No. 2463 of 2008
iv. It is also made clear that, in the event of any
dispute with regard to the title of the land in
question, the aggrieved party shall approach the
competent Civil Court to establish their right
over the property in question, in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
