Karnataka High Court
Vijaykumar S/O Channappa And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 4 March, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1925
WP No. 202637 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 202637 OF 2015 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. VIJAYKUMAR S/O CHANNAPPA,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. VAIJANATH S/O CHANNAPPA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. VISHWANATH S/O CHANNAPPA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. DEVINDRA S/O CHANNAPPA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE HULSOOR,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR-585327.
Digitally signed by ...PETITIONERS
SHILPA R
TENIHALLI (BY SMT. AMBIKA S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
Location: High SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
Court Of
Karnataka AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING, BANALAORE-560009.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR-585401.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BASAVAKALYAN SUB-DIVISION,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1925
WP No. 202637 of 2015
BASAVAKALAYN,
DIST: BIDAR-585327.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR-585327.
5. SHIVARAJ S/O CHANDRAPPA MANGA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. JAGANNATH S/O CHANDRAPPA MANGA ,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. RAJKUMAR S/O CHANDRAPPA MANGA,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
8. SANGAPPA S/O CHANDRAPPA MANGA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
9. GHALEWWA W/O CHANDRAPPA MANGA,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 to 9 ARE
R/O VILLAGE HULSOOR,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR-585327.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJKUMAR A. KORAWAR HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI MEER MOHAMMED ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.03.1994
PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR AT BASAVAKALYAN IN
TBK/RRT//CR-132/85-86, THE ORDER DATED 04.12.1995
PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BASAVAKALYAN IN
APPEAL NO.SDB/APPL/CR-9/94-95/1035 AND THE ORDER
DATED 23.06.2014 PASSED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR IN REVISION PETITION NO.RP/CR/26/2006-07 WHICH
ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, F AND G RESPECTIVELY AND
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1925
WP No. 202637 of 2015
TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE
OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO
RESTORE THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE
RECORDS IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
21.02.1961 IN OS NO.23/1/1959 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
MUNSIFF COURT, BHALKI WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Kum.Ambika S.Patil, learned counsel on behalf
of Sri Sachin M.Mahajan, learned counsel for petitioners
and Sri Rajkumar Korwar, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State and Sri Meer
Mohammed Ali, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8.
2. The writ petition is with the following prayer :
"Praying to issue a writ or order or direction in
the nature of certiorari and quash the order dated
14.03.1994 passed by the Tahsildar at Basavakalyan
in TBK/RRT//CR-132/85-86, the order dated
04.12.1995 passed by the Asst. Commissioner,
Basavakalyan in Appeal No.SDB/APPL/CR-9/94-
95/1035 and the order dated 23.06.2014 passed by
the Dy.Commissioner, Bidar in Revision Petition
No.RP/CR/26/2006-07 which are produced at
Annexure-E, E and G respectively and to issue a writ
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1925
or order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent No.4 to restore the names
of the petitioners in the revenue records in the light
of judgment and decree dated 21.02.1961 in OS
No.23/1/1959 passed by the Hon'ble Munsiff Court,
Bhalki which is produced at Annexure-A."
3. The facts in brief for disposal of the writ petition
is as under :-
Petitioners claim that they are owners in possession
of the land bearing Sy.No.335/2 measuring 02 acre 09
guntas situate in Hulsoor village, Basavakalyan Taluk,
Bidar District. One Chandrappa, being the father of
respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed a suit in O.S.No.23/1/59
contending that he is the owner of the entire land in
Sy.No.335 measuring 38 acres 02 guntas and said suit
was filed against Channappa Jerobe, who is the father of
petitioners. On 01.02.1961, the suit came to be disposed
of holding that Chandrappa is the owner in possession of
land bearing Sy.No.335 excluding the area of 02 acres out
of 38 acres, owned and possessed by Channappa Jerobe.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1925
Thereafter, father of the petitioners remained in the
said land to the extent of 02 acres peacefully exercising
the ownership over the said land. Another suit came to be
filed in O.S.No.150/1982 on 24.08.1992 against the
petitioners herein, who are the sons of Channappa Jerobe.
The said suit came to be disposed of on 16.03.1994.
Against the same, an appeal was filed RA No.18/1994
which was also dismissed on 03.11.2006. Thereafter,
entries in the revenue records continued in the name of
the father of the petitioners, till the year 1993-1994.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that all of
a sudden names of the petitioners were rounded of in the
revenue entries.
5. Perusal of records shows that an order came to
be passed by the Tahsildar, Basavakalyan on 14.03.1994
whereby names of the petitioners were removed.
6. Being aggrieved by the said illegality
committed, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1925
Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No.SDB/APPL/CR-9/94-
95/1035.
7. Though arguments were addressed on merits,
without deciding the matter on merit by considering the
material on record, Assistant Commissioner dismissed the
appeal holding that the Tahsildar has merely corrected the
revenue entries and therefore delay was not condoned and
passed an order dismissing the appeal on 04.12.1995 at
Annexure-F.
8. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
challenged the order in the revision petition before the
Deputy Commissioner in case No.RP/CR/26/2006-07 dated
23.06.2014.
9. The learned Deputy Commissioner also
dismissed the said revision by order dated 23.06.2014.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have
preferred the present writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1925
10. Kum.Amibka S.Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ
petition sought for allowing the writ petition.
11. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.s1 to 4/State and Sri Meer
Mohammad Ali, learned counsel representing respondent
Nos.5 to 8 supports the impugned order.
12. Having heard the parties in detail, this court
perused the material on record meticulously. On such
perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that
there was no order from any competent court with regard
to the title in respect of 02 acres of land possessed by the
father of the petitioners and in the absence of any such
order, revenue authorities does not possess any right
whatsoever to suo moto transfer the entries.
13. The said aspect of the matter has not been
noted by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the
Deputy Commissioner.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1925
14. Accordingly, the writ petitioners have made out
a case for annulling the orders passed by the Tahsidlar,
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.
Hence, the following :-
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) Order at Annexure-E dated 14.03.1994
passed by Tahasildar, Basavakalyan,
Order at Annexure-F dated 04.12.1995
passed by Assistant Commissioner,
Basavakalyan and Order at Annexure-G
dated 23.06.2014 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bidar stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
CT:SI
