Karnataka High Court
Shaik Javeed And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 30 July, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5469
WP No. 200779 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 200779 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SHAIK JAVEED
S/O KHAJA MAINODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SHAIK TAHER
S/O KHAJA MAINODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. SHAIK HAJI
S/O KHAJA MAINODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. SHAIK SADAK
Digitally signed by S/O KHAJA MAINODDIN,
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
DHUTTARGAON OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
5. SHAIK SAJEED
S/O KHAJA MAINODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL R/O. H.NO. 42/96,
GULMIRZA GALLI,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR-585327.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANT S. JAHGIRDAR, ADVOCATE AND
SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5469
WP No. 200779 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR,
DIST: BIDAR-585401.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR-585327.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR-585327.
5. TALEEM BEGUM @ TASLEEM BEGUM
W/O LATE JALIL MIYAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO. 42/96,
GULMIRZA GALLI,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR-585327.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAYA T.R. HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A)
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.02.2024 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN FILE NO. PÀA:C¦Ã®Ä/DgÀ.¦-94/2023-24 THE
COPY OF WHICH AT ANNEXURE-E IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE. B) PASS ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION
WHICH MAY BE DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5469
WP No. 200779 of 2024
CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE, IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
"a) Quash the impugned order dated 06.02.2024
passed by Respondent no. 2 in file No.
PÀA:C¦Ã®Ä/DgÀ.¦-94/2023-24 the copy of which at
annexure-e in the interest of justice.
b) Pass any other writ or order or direction which
may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances
of case, in interest of justice and equity."
2. The contention of the petitioners is that during the
lifetime of the father of the petitioners, the property,
which is the subject matter of the present petition in
Sy.No.36/2 measuring 3 acres at Partapur village,
Tq: Basavakalyan was purchased by the father of the
petitioners in the name of the minor son Jalil Miyan,
who is husband of respondent No.5. Subsequently,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5469
the said property was sold and out of the
consideration certain other properties were
purchased vide sale deed dated the 26.08.1999.
Subsequent to death of Jalil Miyan, the revenue
entries in respect of the properties are mutated in
the name of his wife respondent No.5, which came to
be challenged by the petitioner before the Assistant
Commissioner, Basavakalyan in a proceedings filed
under section 136(2) the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act 1964, which came to be dismissed vide order
dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner at Annexure E. Challenging the said
order, the petitioners are before this court.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the property was not the individual
property of Jalil Miyan, the late husband of
respondent No.5, but was a family property. This
aspect has not been considered by the Assistant
Commissioner in the proper perspective, resulting in
the impugned order being passed. On inquiry, he
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5469
submits that there is a suit in OS No.193/2022
pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at
Basavakalyan filed by the petitioners seeking for
partition of the very same property, as is the subject
matter of the impugned order.
4. If that be so, the contention of the petitioners as to
whether the property is individual property of Jalil
Miyan or the family property, would have to be
determined by the Trial Court seized of the matter.
Today by way of a separate judgment, suit in OS
No.193/2022 and OS No.54/2022 pending between
the same parties have been directed to be clubbed
vide order passed in WP No. 202299/2023. In that
view of the matter, I pass the following order:
ORDER
a. Writ Petition is dismissed.
b. The parties would be bound by the
judgment passed in OS No.193/2022,
clubbed with OS No.54/2022 and any
entries made in any revenue entries would
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5469
be subject to the result of the said
judgment in the said two suits.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
NJ
