Karnataka High Court
Md. Ayub Khan And Ors vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 31 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
WP No. 204055 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.204055 OF 2018 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. MD. AYUB KHAN
S/O ISMAIL
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O H.NO.8-1-79, MULTANI COLONY,
TASKAR ROAD, BIDAR-585401.
2. KHAYAMUNISA BEGUM,
W/O MOHD. ISMAIL KHAN
AGE:73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O H.NO.8-1-79, MULTANI COLONY,
TASKAR ROAD, BIDAR-585401.
Digitally 3. MD.HABIB KHAN
signed by S/O ISMAIL KHAN
RENUKA AGE:49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: R/O H.NO.8-1-79, MULTANI COLONY,
High Court TASKAR ROAD, BIDAR-585401.
Of Karnataka
4. SHAHEEN KHATUN
W/O M.A.MUJEEB
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O H.NO.8-1-79, MULTANI COLONY,
TASKAR ROAD, BIDAR-585401.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
WP No. 204055 of 2018
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIDAR,
DIST: BIDAR-585401.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BIDAR,
DIST: BIDAR-585401.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, BIDAR
DIST: BIDAR-585401.
4. SMT.MEENAKSHI D/O NATHANEIL RAJ
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND TEACHER, R/O MANGALPET BIDAR
THROUGH HER SPA SRI SHASHI KUMAR
S/O SHAMRAO PATIL
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHOWLI, TQ:DIST.BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI HANMANTH M.G., ADVOCATE FOR R4 (ABSENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER AT ANNEXURE-R DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.REV/APPL/CR-54/2017-18/6811 AND
DISMISS THE REVISION PETITION NO.REV/APPL/CR-54/2017-
18/6811 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.4. B) ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF DIRECTIONS/ORDERS TO INITIATE ACTION
TO BE TAKEN AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND THE
PERSONS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE FOR OBTAINING
FRAUDULENT DECREES FROM THE HON'BLE CIVIL COURT BY
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
WP No. 204055 of 2018
MISREPRESENTATION AND BY MISLEADING THE HON'BLE
COURTS AND ALSO THE AUTHORITIES.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have called in question an order
dated 24.09.2018 passed by respondent No.1 in
REV/APPL/CR-54/2017-18/6811. They have also sought
for a writ or order to take out proceedings against
respondent No.4 and other persons involved for obtaining
fraudulent decrees from the Court.
2. The petitioners contend that an extent of 22
acres 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.68 of Aliyabad, Bidar
Taluk and District, was granted to Mrs. Waheedunnisa
Begum under the provisions of the Hyderabad Inams
Abolition Act, 1958. The said Waheedunnisa Begum was
the wife of Mr. Abdul Khadar, who had two wives and Smt.
Waheedunnisa Begum was the second wife. The said Smt.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
Waheedunnisa Begum had executed a power of attorney in
favour of her husband who sold 2 acres 10 guntas to Mr.
Abdul Mannan and 4 acres 2 guntas to Abdul Siddiqui in
terms of sale deed dated 27.01.1978. The said Smt.
Waheedunnisa Begum sold 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.68
in terms of sale deed dated 29.11.1975. Following such
transactions, the revenue authorities issued Form No.10
delineating the properties purchased by petitioner No.2
and property purchased by Abdul Mannan. The property
purchased by the petitioners was assigned as
Sy.No.68/1/A3 while the property purchased by Abdul
Mannan was assigned as Sy.No.68/2. The petitioners
contend that Tippani of Sy.No.68 disclosed that
Sy.No.68/1/A3 was situated on the eastern side of the
land bearing Sy.No.68. It also showed the various
bifurcations made in Sy.No.68 which demonstrated that
Sy.No.68/1/A3 was on the eastern side while 4 acres 23
guntas conveyed to Mr. Abdul Samad Siddiqui was on the
western side and thereafter, the land of Mr. Abdul Mannan
was situated. The petitioners contend that a mutation
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
proceeding was initiated in the year 1975 and the name of
petitioner No.2 was ordered to be entered in the revenue
records. The petitioners therefore contend that they are in
possession of Sy.No.68/1/A3 measuring 2 acres 30
guntas. They contend that Mr. Abdul Mannan who claims
to be the owner of Sy.No.68/U applied for conversion of
his land for non-agricultural purposes. The Deputy
Commissioner in terms of his order dated 08.05.1981
permitted the conversion of the aforesaid land for non-
agricultural use. Thereafter, the said Abdul Mannan
approached Bidar Urban Development Authority for
approval of a layout in 2 acres 10 guntas of Sy.No.68/2.
Accordingly, a layout plan was approved on 16.03.1989.
3. When thing stood thus, the father of respondent
No.4 filed an application before the Assistant
Commissioner, Bidar challenging the mutation order dated
18.02.1972 in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.67 and 68. The
Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal in terms of
the order dated 31.10.1974. Following this, the father of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.167/1997 against Mr. Abdul
Mannan for declaration of his title in Sy.No.68/2. In the
said suit, the boundary of Sy.No.68/2 was mentioned as
the remaining portion of land in Sy.No.68 of the eastern
side. Therefore, the petitioners contend that what was
claimed by the father of respondent No.4 was the land
belonging to Mr. Abdul Mannan and not the property
belonging to them. The petitioners alleged that they came
to know that the father of respondent No.4 had obtained a
fraudulent decree by presenting someone else as Mr.
Abdul Mannan who filed a written statement conceding to
the averments made in the plaint. The petitioners contend
that the signatures found on the written statement in the
said suit were not of Mr. Abdul Mannan but were by
someone else. However, the Civil Court based on the
consent written statement decreed the suit on 20.08.1997.
Later, respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.86/2016 against Mr.
Abdul Mannan. The petitioners contend that the
boundaries mentioned in this suit differed from the
boundaries mentioned in the suit in O.S.No.167/1997,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
inasmuch as the eastern boundary of the property was
shown as 30 feet wide road and thereafter, the land in
Sy.No.66 of Aliyabad. The petitioners thus contend that
the respondent No.4 was trying to lay a claim to the
property belonging to them. It is further claimed that Mr.
Abdul Mannan after obtaining permission from the Deputy
Commissioner and after getting layout plan approved, had
formed plots in the land and sold them to various persons.
The respondent No.4 thereafter filed W.P.No.200788/2017
against Mr. Abdul Mannan challenging the order of
conversion of the land and this Court in terms of the order
dated 30.05.2018, quashed the order of conversion. The
petitioners therefore contend that respondent No.4 was
interested in the land belonging to Mr. Abdul Mannan and
not the property purchased by petitioner No.2. The
petitioners contend that the suit filed by respondent No.4
in O.S.No.86/2016 was also decreed based on a written
statement conceding the averments of the plaint. The
petitioners contend that the written statement filed in the
suit was also fraudulent and the signatures found thereon
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
were not that of Mr. Abdul Mannan. The petitioners
contend that the petitioners on coming to know of
fraudulent decree in O.S.No.86/2016, filed
R.A.No.20/2016 which was dismissed reserving liberty to
the petitioners to file appropriate suit to protect their title
and possession. The petitioners thereafter challenged the
said judgment in RSA No.200192/2016 which too was
dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a suit
to establish their title to the suit property. In the
meanwhile, respondent No.4 had approached the Tahsildar
for effecting mutation based on the decree passed in
O.S.No.86/2016. The Tahsildar perusing the objections
raised by the petitioners, rejected the application of
respondent No.4 on 04.02.2017 which then came to be
challenged by respondent No.4 before the Assistant
Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed in terms of the
order dated 22.09.2017. In the meanwhile, the petitioners
filed O.S.No.10/2017 for declaration of their title in respect
of land bearing Sy.No.68/1/A3 measuring 2 acres 30
guntas and for consequential relief of injunction against
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
respondent No.4 and others including Mr. Abdul Mannan.
In the said suit, an interim order was granted directing the
parties to maintain status quo in terms of the order dated
25.04.2017. The petitioners contend that, when thing
stood thus, respondent No.4 filed a revision petition before
the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Deputy Commissioner in
terms of his order dated 24.09.2018, remitted the case
back to the Tahsildar to decide the case afresh by looking
into the judgments and decrees passed in
O.S.No.167/1997, 86/2016 as well as the judgment and
decree of this Court in RSA No.200192/2016. Being
aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Commissioner,
the petitioners are before this Court in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that
respondent No.4 has acted fraudulently in giving different
boundaries and claiming the property of the petitioners.
He submits that initially when the suit was filed by the
father of respondent No.4, in O.S.No.167/1997, the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
property mentioned in the suit corresponded to the
property bearing Sy.No.68/2. He submits that the very
fact that respondent No.4 had challenged the permission
granted by the Deputy Commissioner for conversion in
favour of Mr. Abdul Mannan indicated that respondent
No.4 was interested in the property of Mr. Abdul Mannan
and not the property of the petitioners. He therefore
contends that the Tahsildar as well as the Assistant
Commissioner after going through the difference in the
boundaries mentioned in the decrees in O.S.No.167/1997
and O.S.No.86/2016, had refused to entertain the request
of respondent No.4 to enter her name in the revenue
records. He therefore contends that the Deputy
Commissioner without considering this factual aspect
committed an error in remanding the matter back to the
Tahsildar to look into the decrees passed. He contends
that the petitioners have now filed a suit for declaration of
their title to the suit property where respondent No.4 and
Mr. Abdul Mannan are arrayed as parties and the Court
has directed the parties to maintain status quo. He
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
therefore contends that the revenue entries in respect of
land bearing Sy.No.68/1/A3 had to be maintained status
quo pending disposal of the suit. He has placed on record
the RTC of the land bearing Sy.No.68/1/A3 and contends
that the names of the petitioners are entered in the
revenue records as on date.
5. He further submits that the advocate who
represented respondent No.4 was also the person who had
drafted the sale deed executed by Mr. Abdul Mannan in
favour of various persons. Thus, he contends that the
advocate for respondent No.4 has colluded with
respondent No.4 in bringing about false decree in
O.S.No.86/2016 and therefore, submits that suitable steps
be initiated against respondent No.4 and the advocate for
respondent No.4.
6. Respondent No.4 has filed a detailed statement
of objections contending that the vendor of respondent
No.2 Mrs. Waheedunnisa Begum had purchased 16 acres
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
38 guntas in Sy.No.68 of Aliyabad from Mr. D. Sunder Raj
S/o D. Moses in terms of the sale deed dated 03.11.1971.
It was contended that Mr. D. Sunder Raj was not the
owner and did not posses any right, title or interest in the
said property. He further contended that one Mr. Thomas
John was the owner of the land which was purchased by
him in terms of sale deed dated 11.10.1965. Therefore, he
contends that there was nothing to establish how the
vendor of petitioner No.2 derived title to the property in
question. Therefore, he contends that the petitioners are
claiming title through a void and unenforceable document
and hence, it did not confer any right, title or interest on
the petitioners. It was further contended that the
petitioners had fraudulently conspired with the revenue
officials in getting their names entered in the records.
Likewise, it was contended that the children of Mrs.
Waheedunnisa Begum would not get any right, title or
interest over the said property. She contended that she
filed a suit in O.S.No.86/2016 against Mr. Abdul Mannan
who was interfering with her possession in Sy.No.68/U
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
measuring 2 acres 10 guntas. She claimed that the said
suit was decreed which was challenged by the petitioners
in R.A. No.20/2016 and thereafter, before this Court in
RSA No.200192/2016. She contends that the decree
passed in O.S.No.86/2016 was confirmed by this Court in
RSA No.200192/2016. It is claimed that the father of
respondent No.4 had filed Form No.7 where Mrs.
Waheedunnisa Begum was a party. It was contended that
since the land stood vested in the State Government, the
transaction brought about subsequent to 01.03.1974 was
null and void and did not confer any right, title or interest.
Thus, she contended that the sale in favour of petitioner
No.2 was a fraud on the State Government. She did admit
that she challenged the grant of conversion of 2 acres 10
guntas in Sy.No.68/U in favour of Mr. Abdul Mannan in
W.P.No.200788/2017. She however disputed the fact that
Mr.Abdul Mannan had formed a layout of residential plots
and had conveyed them to the various purchasers. She
also admitted that her father had filed O.S.No.167/1997
against Mr. Abdul Mannan and that the said suit was
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
decreed based on a consent written statement filed by
him. Thus in short, respondent No.4 denied the title of the
petitioners to the property bearing Sy.No.68/1/A3 and
claimed that she was the owner of the said property and
claimed that it was the land in Sy.No.68/U.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has
remained absent and therefore this Court did not have the
benefit of his submission.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader
submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has only
remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar to re-consider
the case of respondent No.4 in view of the judgments and
decrees passed in O.S.No.86/2016 and 167/1977 as well
the judgment and decree in RSA No.200192/2016. He
submits that the impugned order does not affect the
petitioners in any manner and therefore, the proceedings
before the Tahsildar may be directed to be concluded.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
9. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
10. The fact that the petitioners have purchased an
extent of land in Sy.No.68 of Aliyabad village is evident
from the sale deed produced by them. It is also evident
that an extent of land was purchased by Mr. Abdul Mannan
in Sy.No.68. The fact that the father of respondent No.4
had filed O.S.No.167/1997 against Mr. Abdul Mannan
established that what the respondent No.4 was claiming
was the land that was purchased by Mr. Abdul Mannan and
not the land owned by the petitioners. Similarly,
respondent No.4 challenged the conversion order granted
in favour of Mr. Abdul Mannan in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.68/2, which again established that the land in which
respondent No.4 was interested was the land owned by
Mr. Abdul Mannan and not the land owned by the
petitioners herein. The question whether the boundaries
mentioned in O.S.No.86/2016 corresponded to the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
boundaries of the property purchased by the petitioners, is
a matter of fact that is to be established in the Civil Court
in O.S.No.10/2017 filed by the petitioners herein. Now
that the revenue records stand in the names of the
petitioners in respect of land in question in Sy.No.68/1/A3
and as the petitioners have already approached the Civil
Court in O.S.No.10/2017 for declaration of their title in
respect of suit property, the revenue records cannot be
altered pending disposal of the suit. Neither the petitioners
nor respondent No.4 brought to the notice of the Deputy
Commissioner that the petitioners had filed
O.S.No.10/2017 claiming title in respect of the land
bearing Sy.No.68/1/A3. If only this was brought to the
notice of the Deputy Commissioner, he would have
relegated the parties to the Civil Court and the revenue
entries would have been subject to the outcome of suit in
O.S.No.10/2017. Since that was not done, the Deputy
Commissioner felt that the decrees in O.S.No.167/1997
and O.S.No.86/2016 had to be given effect to and
therefore, remitted the case back to the Tahsildar. This
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
could have been avoided by the petitioners if they were
diligent in bringing to the notice of the Deputy
Commissioner about the pendency of suit in
O.S.No.10/2017. Now that the petitioners have placed on
record the RTC extract of Sy.No.68/1/A3 which shows the
names of the petitioners in column Nos.9 and 11, it is
appropriate to hold that the said revenue entry shall
continue till disposal of the suit in O.S.No.10/2017.
Consequently, the order of remand passed by the Deputy
Commissioner is unwarranted and hence, the following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner dated 24.09.2018 in
No.REV/APPL/CR-54/2017-18/6811 is
quashed.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3485
(iii) The petitioners and respondents are
directed to workout their remedies in
O.S.No.10/2017 pending consideration
before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Bidar.
(iv) It is needless to mention that the revenue
entries in respect of Sy.No.68/1/A3 shall
be continued till disposal of suit in
O.S.No.10/2017 and thereafter, it is open
for the parties to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law.
(v) Any observation made herein shall not
affect the disposal of the suit in
O.S.10/2017 on merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
CT:SI
