Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vijay Kumar vs Deputy Commissioner on 9 January, 2023
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 24056 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 24056 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR
S/O LATE M SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO. 206/5,
CANARA BANK LAYOUT,
SAHAKARA NAGARA
BENGALURU 560097.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KEMPANNA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
1ST FLOOR,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 110.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA
BANGALORE RURALDISTRICT 561 203.
3. TAHASILDAR
HOSKOTE TALUK
HOSAKOTE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 114.
-2-
WP No. 24056 of 2022
4. SMT. RAJESHWARI,
W/O LATE SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT 81/2, 2nd MAIN ROAD,
DATTATHREYA NAGARA
HOSAKERE HALLI
BANGALORE 560085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. A.G. SHIVANNA. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAMESHA M.N., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN RP 140/2020 DTD 18.11.2022
VIDE ANNX-H AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN RA
(H).256/2019 DTD 05.10.2020 VIDE ANNX-G AND THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RRT (DIS) BHUMI/286/2018-19 DTD
30.07.2019 VIDE ANNX-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINRY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice
for respondents No.1 to 3. Learned Counsel Sri.Ramesha
M.N., has entered appearance for respondent No.4, the
contesting respondent.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned
orders dated 30.07.2019 at Annexure-F passed by the
respondent-Tahsildar, Hosakote Taluk, the order dated
WP No. 24056 of 2022
05.10.2020 at Annexure-G passed by the respondent-
Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division and
the order dated 18.11.2022 at Annexure-H passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District. The
dispute pertains to 5 acres and 36 guntas of land in
Sy.No.13 of Devishettyhalli village, Jadeganahalli Hobli,
Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
3. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the
brother-in-law of respondent No.4. It is also not disputed
that the members of the joint family entered into a
panchayath parikath on 04.05.2006. On the basis of the
said panchayat parikath, the names of the respective
persons in whose favour the shares were allotted got their
names entered in the land records. However, in respect of
the land in question, it is contended that the name of all
members of the joint family members were entered in the
land records and it is only by way of the impugned orders
that respondent No.4 got her name entered in the land
records. It is now sought to be disputed at the hands of
the petitioner that the panchayat parikath dated
WP No. 24056 of 2022
04.05.2006 on the basis of which respondent No.4 has got
here name entered in the land records is not the original
panchayath parikath and therefore, the petitioner is
raising a challenge to the same.
4. During the course of the arguments, it is brought
to the notice of this Court that O.S.No.65/2004 was filed
by one Sri.Shankarappa, who is said to be a distance
relative of the parties herein. The said suit was dismissed.
However, in a regular appeal in R.A.No.71/2014, the VIII
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, allowed the appeal by a judgment dated 12th
March, 2018 and remitted the matter back to the trial
court to decide the same on merits in view of the
observations made in the judgment, after allowing the
plaintiff to lead additional evidence. However, the learned
Senior Counsel Sri.A.G.Shivanna appearing for respondent
No.4 submits that the suit filed by Sri.Shankarappa cannot
be construed as a dispute raised between the parties,
since both the parties admit that there was a division of
the joint family properties under a panchayath parikath
WP No. 24056 of 2022
dated 04.05.2006. It was also submitted that respondent
No.4 had also filed a suit in O.S.No.332/2017, which was a
suit for partition and separate possession. However, the
same has been withdrawn by respondent No.4 and
thereafter respondent No.4 approached the revenue
authorities to have her name entered in the land records.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4
and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that
there is difference of opinion between the parties herein
and more particularly in respect of the contents of the
panchayath parikath dated 04.05.2006. However, this
Court would not hesitate to hold that if such a dispute is
raised between the parties, which touches upon the right,
title and interest of the parties pertaining to immovable
properties, the same cannot be decided by the revenue
authorities. The dispute has to necessarily be decided by
the competent civil court. Any of the aggrieved parties
herein may approach the civil court and get their rights
declared. Till then, it would be appropriate that the
WP No. 24056 of 2022
revenue entries should be maintained as they were prior
to the impugned order.
6. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed,
while setting aside all impugned orders dated 30.07.2019
at Annexure-F passed by the respondent-Tahsildar,
Hosakote Taluk, order dated 05.10.2020 at Annexure-G
passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner,
Doddaballapura Sub-Division and the order dated
18.11.2022 at Annexure-H passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District.
7. Needless to observe that any observations made
by this Court in this writ petition or the setting aside the
impugned orders shall not affect the rights of the parties.
Their rights shall be decided based on the merits of the
case and not to go by the entries made in the land
revenue records.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
