Karnataka High Court
Shri Shivayogi S/O Gurushiddappa Benni vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769
WP No. 103404 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.103404 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SHIVAYOGI
S/O GURUSHIDDAPPA BENNI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MADIHAL MAIN ROAD,
DHARWAD-580006,
TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SMT. LALITA
W/O SHIVAYOGI BENNI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MADIHAL MAIN ROAD,
DHARWAD-580006,
TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BHARATHI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HM
REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
DEPT. OF REVENUE,
BENCH
Date: 2024.07.06 12:15:08
+0530 VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
AND SURVEY SETTLEMENT, DHARWAD-580001,
DIST: DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDL. GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769
WP No. 103404 of 2024
A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED: 11/03/2024 BRG
NO.NaMa/II/Vardi/VaHi/246/2023-24 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
VIDE ANNEXURE-L, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
B) ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTION BY DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN
THE PROPERTY REGISTER CARD/REVENUE ENTRIES PURSUANT TO
SALE DEED VIDE ANNEXURE-K IN RESPECT OF LAND BRG
CTS.NO.191/MD MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 268 SQ.YARDS
(224.07 SQ.MTRS) SITUATED AT MADIHAL, DHARWAD IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the land
bearing CTS No.191/MD measuring to an extent of 268
sq.yards situated at Madihal, Dharwad, belonging to one
Muralidhar S/o.Krishnacharya Shurpali and on 09.04.2009
the aforesaid Muralidhar through power of attorney holder
executed a gift deed in favour of Shri Laxmi Narasimha
Devara Trust Committee, Madihal and the name of the said
Trust came to be entered in the encumbrance certificate.
Thereafter the registered trust through its meeting has
unanimously decided to sell the land in question in favour of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769
the petitioners as they were in need of funds for performance
of objects of the trust and therefore they executed an
agreement of sale and the sale deed pursuant to the said
resolution dated 22.05.2022. The sale deed came to be
executed on 22.12.2023 in favour of the petitioners by the
trust which is produced at Annexure-K. Before purchasing
the property, the petitioners had obtained bank loan and also
made a paper publication with regard to purchase of the said
property belonging to the trust. Thereafter since none
objected, no claim was made, registered sale deed was
executed in favour of the petitioners.
3. The petitioners pursuant to the registered sale
deed made application to enter their names in the property
extract card before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 by
order issued an endorsement stating that the petitioners
have to obtain orders of the Court before execution of the
sale deed and in view of the non providing of documents,
rejected the application filed by the petitioners to enter their
names in the property extract. It is this action of respondent
No.2 which is questioned by the petitioners.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769
4. It is vehemently contended by the learned
counsel for petitioners that once the petitioners have
purchased the property by virtue of a registered sale deed,
from the erstwhile owner/trust, who was the valid owner of
the property and having made an application to the
respondent for change of revenue entries in the land records,
it becomes the duty of the respondent to verify the
registered sale deed document and enter the names of the
petitioners who are the registered owners by virtue of a
registered sale deed.
5. This aspect is seriously controverted and objected
by learned Addl. Government Advocate by contending that
there are powers vested with the respondent ADLR to
enquire into the title and if it is right as provided under Rule
83 of City Survey Manual, which contemplates enquiry into
titles, rights, etc., of building sites and the lands, the area of
which is determined under section 152 which is surveyed
under sub-rules (1) and (2) of this rules, shall be enquired
into by the Survey Officer or any other officer appointed by
the State Government.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769
6. Learned counsel for respondent also sustains the
order passed by respondent No.2 on the ground there is no
arbitrariness or illegality in the order passed by respondent
No.2 seeking for verification of documents and titles for the
purpose of entering the names of petitioner. Therefore, he
sustains the order passed by respondent No.2.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as
well as the learned Addl. Government Advocate.
8. Section 128 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964
contemplates the entries for the acquisition of rights to be
reported. Any person acquiring right of ownership by
succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase,
mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, any right as holder,
occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land
or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof to make an
application to the prescribed officer of the village within three
months to make an entry in the record of rights. Further
proviso to section 128 contemplates that any person
acquiring right by virtue of a registered document shall be
exempted from the obligation to report to the prescribed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769
officer. The law is well settled in view of the provisions of
section 128(4) that when there is a registered sale deed, the
obligation is cast upon the officer to report to the prescribed
officer with regard to the registration of instrument based on
which there need not be any application for change of entry
in the record of rights as it is exempted in the second proviso
to section 128(1) of the Act.
9. This being the case, the petitioner made an
application to respondent to change the entries in the record
of rights on the basis of the registered sale deed which is
rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that he needs
some more documents to verify title and other records to
enter the names. I am afraid such powers are not vested
with respondent No.2 to reject or call for any further
documents when there is a registered document of sale deed
in favour of the petitioners. He is duty bound and an
obligation is cast upon him by virtue of second proviso to
section 128(1) to register the entries in the record of rights
as per the registered sale deed/instrument. There is no
provision for respondent No.2 to call for any further records
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8769
to enquire into antecedents/veracity of the title to enter the
names of the registered owner in the record of rights. This
view is supported by a Full Bench judgment in the case of
Smt.Jayamma and others vs. the State of Karnataka
and others, reported in AIR 2020 (NOC) 862 (KAR).
Therefore, in view of the above discussions, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsement dated 11.03.2024
issued by respondent No.2, vide Annexure-L is hereby
quashed.
iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.2
to enter the names of the petitioners in the property register
card, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRK
CT:BCK
