Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmidevamma vs State Of Government Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2023
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.22455 OF 2022 (KLR - RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
D/O B.V.NARAYANASWAMY,
W/O K.G.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/A MUNICHANAHALLI (V),
SOMENAHALLI HOBLI,
GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA S.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE THAHASILDHAR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUQ,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO CONSIDER THE
ANNEXURE - A REPRESENTATION DATED 19.08.2022 AND
FURTHER DIRECTING THE R2 TO MAKE APPROPRIATE
ORDER TO MAKE ENTRIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned High Court Government Pleader is
directed to take notice for both the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that although the petitioner has obtained a
decree at the hands of the competent civil Court in
O.S.No.189/2022 vide judgment dated 17.08.2022
and made a representation to the 2nd respondent-
Tahsildar, Gudibande Taluk (wrongly mentioned as
Chikkaballapura Taluk), the Tahsildar has orally
informed the petitioner that unless a 11E sketch is
produced, the katha cannot be transferred. Learned
counsel submits that there are several decisions of
this Court to the effect that it is not mandatory to
produce a 11E sketch.
3. However, learned High Court Government
Pleader draws the attention of this Court to a recent
decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Fathima Bee
and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in
W.P.No.10647/2022 dated 29.7.2022 and submits
that this Court, even after noticing the said decisions,
which are sought to be relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, has proceeded to hold in
terms of W.P.No.102325/2022 dated 06.07.2022 at
the Dharwad Bench, as follows:
"However, on hearing the learned
counsel for petitioner and the learned
HCGP, this Court finds that there is a
purpose behind the insistance on
production of 11E sketch prepared at the
hands of the license surveyor, as
contained in Clause-C of Section 131 of
the Act, 1964. It provides that
whenever there is alienation of a part of
agricultural land or there is a division of
a land into different parts entitling
various persons who held the property,
when unless a proper sketch is prepared
at the hands of the license surveyor
depicting the correct division or sub-
division of the lands and the entitlement
of each person, the survey department
will not be in a position to maintain
accurate records. If this mandatory
requirement is not fulfilled, it would give
rise to several litigations in future and
the survey department or revenue
department will not be in a position to
furnish correct information.
Further, the issue is not only
regarding the entry of the name of a
person in the land revenue records or
record of rights. The purpose of the
provision is to enable the maintenance of
proper record in the office of the survey
department/ revenue department. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the
very purpose behind the enactment of
the provision and the wisdom of the
legislature in mandating production of
revenue sketch (popularly known as
'11E' sketch) prepared by a license
surveyor wherever there is a division or
sub-division of a land would be defeated
if a direction is issued to the Tahasildar
to enter the names of the person in the
record of rights consequent to a
compromise decree drawn before a Civil
Court. No doubt, the State Government
has clarified in it's subsequent circular
dated 03.01.2019, 21.10.2019 and the
circular dated 14.11.2016 issued by the
Director of Bhoomi and UPOR, as noticed
by the coordinate benches in the
judgment sited herein above, clarifying
that the Sub-Registrar need not insist
upon furnishing the 11E sketch while
registering a document. However, the
same may not be readily acceptable in
the case of the entry in the revenue
records."
4. Consequently, the writ petition stands
disposed of with a direction to the second respondent-
Tahsildar, Gudibande Taluk, to consider the
representation dated 19.08.2022 at Annexure-A.
However, the petitioner is required to produce the 11E
sketch as noticed herein above before the second
respondent-Tahsildar, Gudibande Taluk. As and when
the 11E sketch is produced along with the decree
passed by the civil court, the Thasildar shall pass the
necessary orders entering the name of the petitioner
and the private respondents herein in terms of the
final decree passed by the civil judge and JMFC,
Gudibade, on 17.08.2022 in O.S. No. 189/2022, while
maintaining the 11E sketch for the purposes of the
land records/survey records.
Ordered accordingly.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader is
permitted to file memo of appearance within a period
of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rv
