Karnataka High Court
Farukh S/ O Jafarsab @ Mohhamad ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 20 June, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WP No. 101113 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 101113 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
FARUKH S/ O JAFARSAB @ MOHHAMAD JAFAR
KILEDAR @ MULLA, AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, ROTSON APPATMENT,
TRAINING COLLEGE ROAD, KC PARK ROAD,
DHARWAD-580001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M G KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. J S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
RAKESH S 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HARIHAR DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
3. TAHSHILDAR, DHARWAD,
RAKESH S HARIHAR TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Date: 2023.06.21 12:16:10 4. LAXMAN S/O FAKKIRAPPA KADAPPANAVAR,
+0530 AGE: MAJOR, R/O. MAYUR PARK,
YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY, DHARWAD-580004.
5. SHRINIVAS S/O SHRIKANT GHOTNEKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, R/O. C 168, HALIYAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581329.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1-R3;
SRI. PRAKASH BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. M B PUJAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
-2-
WP No. 101113 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD IN RP NO.15/2021 DATED
24.3.2022, THE COPY OF THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN
PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, THE ORDER
DATED 24.3.2021 IN RTS/AP/ID/ 18/2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THE COPY OF WHICH HAS
BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-B, AND ALSO THE
ORDER DTED 26.9.2019 IN RTD/CR/138/2017 PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TAHASHILDAR THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN
PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this Court
invoking Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
with the prayer to quash the order at Annexure-A, dated
24.03.2022, passed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy
Commissioner; the order at Annexure-B, dated
24.03.2021, passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant
Commissioner; & the order at Annexure-C, dated
26.09.2019, passed by respondent No.3 - the Tahshildar.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner in
possession of the land bearing R.S. No.300 measuring
4 acres 27 gutnas of Kamalapur, Dharwad. It is his case
WP No. 101113 of 2023
that originally, the said land belonged to his father; after
the death of his father, the petitioner had succeeded to
the same. Respondent No.5 on the strength of the general
power of attorney allegedly executed by the petitioner,
had got a sale deed executed in his favour on 03.09.2014.
Thereafter on 08.05.2015, he had executed a sale deed in
respect of the land in dispute in faovur of respondent
No.4. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner had
filed a suit in O.S. No.443/2014 against respondent
Nos.4 & 5 with the prayer to declare his title in respect of
the suit schedule property and also to declare the sale
deeds dated 03.09.2014 & 08.05.2015 are null and void.
The said suit was decreed by the jurisdictional Civil Court
by judgment and decree dated 31.03.2017. Respondent
No.4 had challenged the said judgment and decree in R.A.
No.225/2017 and the said appeal was dismissed on
26.07.2018 and it is not in dispute that the said judgment
and decree has attained finality. The petitioner thereafter
had made an application to transfer the entries in the
revenue records of the land in question in his favour on
WP No. 101113 of 2023
the basis of the decree obtained by him in O.S.
No.443/2014. However, the Tahshildar has rejected his
claim and the said order of the Tahshildar, dated
26.09.2019, vide Annexure-C has been confirmed by the
Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Deputy
Commissioner vide Annexures-B & A respectively. It is
under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this
Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the Civil Courts have declared his title in respect of
the land in question and also have declared that the sale
deeds made in favour of respondent Nos.4 & 5, dated
03.09.2014 & 08.05.2015 are null and void, the revenue
authorities have refused to enter the name of the
petitioner in the revenue records of the land in question.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.4 & 5 and learned AGA appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 have argued in support of the
impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities and
WP No. 101113 of 2023
submit that, since it appears that some other suits are
pending, the revenue authorities were justified in refusing
to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records
of the land in question.
5. The material on record would go to show that
the petitioner's father had executed a Will in his favour in
respect of the land in question and the said Will was
probated in proceedings bearing P & SC No.9/2012 by the
Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad. On the
basis of the said order, the name of the petitioner was
entered in the revenue records of the land in question.
Subsequently, on the strength of the sale deed dated
03.09.2014, respondent No.5 appears to have got his
name entered in the revenue records of the land in
question and thereafter he had executed a sale deed in
favour of respondent No.5 on 08.05.2015. The
jurisdictional Civil Court in O.S. No.443/2014 had declared
the title of the petitioner and the sale deeds dated
03.09.2014 and 08.05.2015 are declared as null and void.
WP No. 101113 of 2023
The revenue authorities were required to take the
judgment and decree passed by the jurisdictional Civil
Court into consideration and act accordingly. Since the
title of the petitioner has already been declared by the
jurisdictional Civil Court and sale deeds, which stood in the
name of respondent Nos.4 & 5 have been declared as null
and void, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not justified in
rejecting the petitioner's claim to enter his name in the
revenue records of the land in question. Under the
circumstances, the impugned orders at Annexures-A, B &
C cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders at Annexure-A, dated
24.03.2022, passed by respondent No.1 -
the Deputy Commissioner; Annexure-B,
dated 24.03.2021, passed by respondent
No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner; &
Annexure-C, dated 26.09.2019, passed by
respondent No.3 - the Tahshildar are
quashed.
WP No. 101113 of 2023
(iii) Respondent No.3 - the Tahshildar is
directed to take into consideration the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.
No.443/2014 and take necessary steps to
enter the name of the petitioner in the
revenue records of the land in question
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*/Ct:Bck
