Karnataka High Court
Sri K Shivanna vs The Deputy Commissioner on 2 January, 2023
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 11425 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 11425 OF 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K SHIVANNA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
(a) KEMPAJAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
(b) PAVITHRA
D/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
(c) MANJULA
D/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
(d) NAGESH S
S/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
2. SRI CHIKKARAJU
S/O LATE KEMPARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3. SRI RAMAIAH
S/O LATE KEMPARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
4. SRI SHANTHE GOWDA
S/O LATE KEMPARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
-2-
WP No. 11425 of 2012
ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKEGOWDANADODDI
KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE &
SRI. D C KEERTHI PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
3. THE TAHSILDHAR
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
4. SRI DEVARAJU @ DEVARAJAIAH
S/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/A MADARABASABARADODDI
HARISANDRA POST
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. K G SADASHIVAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE BEARING
R.P. NO.09/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A RESPECTIVELY AND
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS VIDE ANNEXURE-A
BEARING R.P. NO.09/2011-12 DATED 29.3.2012
-3-
WP No. 11425 of 2012
RESPECTIVELY HOLDING THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY
AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners who are all the sons of late Sri
Kemparamaih and claim under their father, are aggrieved
by the impugned order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the
respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagar District.
2. The dispute brought before this Court is in respect
of the entries in the land revenue records pertaining to
Sy.No.126 and more particularly Sy.No.126/1A of
Harisandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and
District.
3. Earlier the petitioners herein had filed
O.S.No.127/1990 against all the respondents herein
including the Government of Karnataka, seeking a
declaration that the petitioners herein are the absolute
WP No. 11425 of 2012
owners of 12 acres of land inclusive of 32 guntas of karab
in Sy.No.126/2 of Harisandra Village. However, by a
judgment and decree dated 20.02.2003, the suit was
partly decreed declaring the petitioners herein as the
absolute owners of 4 acres and 4 guntas only in
Sy.No.126/2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners
herein have not further challenged the judgment and
decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.127/1990.
4. However, respondent No.4 herein approached the
respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District by
filing a revision petition in R.P.No.9/2011-12 calling in
question the order dated 05.04.2010 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, in RRT/CR/1548/2009-10 and the
subsequent mutation entries made by the Tahsildar in
M.R.No.366/2009-10 dated 28.06.2010. The Deputy
Commissioner, in the impugned order, though noticed the
judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in
O.S.No.127/1990, held that the entries made in the land
records in favour of respondent No.4 herein is on the
strength of a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1982 in
WP No. 11425 of 2012
respect of 3 acres and 17 guntas of land including 8
guntas of karab land. The Deputy Commissioner has
noticed that there is a judgment and decree in favour of
the petitioners herein in respect of 4 acres and 4 guntas of
land which would remain intact, however, to the extent of
the name of respondent No.4 being directed to be
removed from the land records was found fault with and
the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to pass the
impugned order setting aside the orders of the Assistant
Commissioner as well as the Tahsildar.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.4,
the learned AGA and on perusing the petition papers, this
Court finds that the Deputy Commissioner is right while
noticing that in the land records 4 acres and 5 guntas of
land have remained intact in the name of the petitioners
herein. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court
that contesting respondent No.4 herein has filed
O.S.No.499/2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Ramanagara, seeking a declaration and injunction while
WP No. 11425 of 2012
arraying the petitioners herein as defendants No.4 to 7. It
is also given to understand that the petitioners herein
have filed a counter claim seeking to set aside the sale
deed dated 14.05.1982. Be that as it may, in the
considered opinion of this court, no fault can be found with
the order of the Deputy Commissioner, since the name of
respondent No.4 is permitted to continue in the land
records on the strength of the sale deed dated
14.05.1982. The real question as to whether there was
any extent of land which remained in the ownership of the
vendor of respondent No.4 and whether he could have
executed the sale deed in favour of respondent no.4
herein would be decided in the suit that is pending
consideration in O.S.No.499/2011. Therefore, awaiting
the decision of the Civil Court in O.S.No.499/2011, no
harm or prejudice will be caused to the petitioners if the
name of respondent No.4 is permitted to be continued in
the land records in respect of 3 acres and 17 guntas of
land which were purchased under the sale deed dated
14.05.1982.
WP No. 11425 of 2012
6. It is however required to be made clear that
respondent No.4 shall not be permitted to cause any
interference in respect of 4 acres and 4 guntas of land
which have been decreed in favour of the petitioners
herein by a competent civil court in O.S.No.127/1990.
Respondent No.4 will have to await the decision of the
Civil Court in O.S.No.499/2011.
7. With these observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of directing the parties to await the outcome of
the original suit in O.S.No.499/2011 while making it clear
that the name of respondent No.4 shall be permitted to
continue in the land records in respect of 3 acres 17
guntas of land.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JT/-
