Karnataka High Court

Sri. K. Dharmaraj vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 March, 2025

Author: N S Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda

                                                  -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:9457
                                                          W.P. No.7995/2015




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                               DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
                                                BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
                             WRIT PETITION NO.7995/2015 (KLR-RR/SUR)


                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI. K. DHARMARAJ
                      S/O LATE KRISHNOJIRAO
                      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                      AGRICULTURIST
                      R/O DUGLAPURA VILLAGE
                      KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
                      CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577144.
Digitally signed by
ARSHIFA BAHAR
KHANAM                                                             ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              (BY SRI. S.V. BHOJARAJA, ADV.,)
KARNATAKA
                      AND:

                      1.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                            CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

                      2.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LANDS RECORDS
                            CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

                      3.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                            CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

                      4.    THE TAHASILDAR
                            TARIKERE TALUK
                            CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

                      5.    SMT. SHARIFABEE
                            W/O LATE AMIRJAN
                            R/O MUSLIM COLONY
                            DUGLAPURA VILLAGE
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:9457
                                      W.P. No.7995/2015




     KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
     CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577144.

6.   SRI. C.B. VISWANATHA
     S/O LATE BOMMARAYIGOWDA
     R/O DUGALAPURA VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
     CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577144.

7.   SRI. B. RAJEGOWDA
     S/O LATE BOMMARAYIGOWDA
     BAVIKERE VILLAGE
     LAKKAVALLI VIA, TARIKERE TALUK
     CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577144.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
     SRI. G. SHANKAR, ADV., FOR R6 & R7
          R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER IN NO.DDLR.R.P18/09-10
AND 14/2014-15 AS ANNEX-H & L DTD.22.3.2011 & 1.1.2015
RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE R-1 AND DIRECTION TO
RECTIFICATION THE WRONG ENTRY IN THE M.R.NO.53/2007-
08 TO CONVERT THE SURVEY NUMBER 358 INSTEAD OF OLD
NUMBER 164/P ANNEX-F, AND RTC TO PROPER DISPLAY THE
EXTENT AS REMAINING THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IS
ACRE 01-08 GUNTAS IN ANNEX-J1 & J2 & ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
                                         -3-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:9457
                                                         W.P. No.7995/2015




                               ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by

the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.03.2011. The Deputy

Commissioner by the impugned order has allowed the

Revision Petition filed by respondent No.5 and has passed

an order in the following terms:

ಆ ೇಶ ೕಲ ನ ಪ ರಸ ೆ. ತ ೕೆ ೆ ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸಬ ೋಬ ದು ಾ!ಪ ರ ಾ"ಮದ ಹ%ೇ ಸ.ನಂ.164 ರ' ೊಸ.ನಂ.358 ರ ದುರ ( ಆ ೇಶವನು* ರದು+ಪ, ೆ ಾಗೂ .ಾನ/ 0 1ಾ/2ಾಲಯದ ಅಂ5ಮ ಆ ೇಶವನು* ಅನುಸ ಕ"ಮವ6ಸುವ ಷರ58 ೆ ಒಳಪ, ತಹ;ೕ<ಾ+= ತ ೕ ೆ ೆ ಾಲೂಕು ಇವ ೆ ಆ ೇ; ೆ.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had

instituted a suit against respondent No.5 in

O.S.No.192/1999 and two others. This suit was for an

injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.164 measuring

4 acres which had been granted to the father of the writ

petitioner. This suit was decreed by the judgment dated

06.04.2002, and respondent No.5 and two other

defendants were restrained from interfering with the

NC: 2025:KHC:9457

possession of the petitioner over the suit property i.e.,

Sy.No.164 measuring 4 acres.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out

that this decree has become final and in fact this decree

was put to execution when interference was made by the

defendants and in the execution petition, a memo was

filed by the second judgment debtor to the effect that they

would not interfere in the possession of the petitioner over

the alleged decree property. It is therefore, the contention

of the petitioner that the entitlement of the petitioner over

4 acres was accepted by respondent No.5 and hence he

would be entitled to enjoy the extent of 4 acres.

4. It is however admitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that out of this 4 acres, an extent of 2

acres 32 guntas has been sold and only an extent of 1

acre 8 guntas has been retained. It is contended that not

withstanding the fact that the writ petitioner had retained

1 acre 8 guntas, the durasti was conducted in which it was

stated that the land bearing Sy.No.164 was assigned new

NC: 2025:KHC:9457

Sy.No.358 and the extent was reduced to 3 acres 34

guntas and this was further phoded into 358/1 and 358/2

measuring 2 acres 32 guntas and 1 acre 2 guntas. The

land purchased by the petitioner's father was assigned

358/1 and shown to have an extent of 2 acres 32 guntas,

but in respect of the land retained as against the extent of

1 acre 8 guntas, the land was shown as 1 acre 2 guntas,

thereby reducing the extent by 6 guntas.

5. Respondent No.5 filed a revision petition before

the Deputy Commissioner challenging the podi made in

respect of Sy.Nos.358/1 and 358/2 contending that the

property that was in her possession for which she had

made a claim for regularization of unauthorized occupation

was included. The Deputy Commissioner considered this

revision petition, has stated as follows in reasoning:

"vÀದನಂತರ ?1ಾಂಕ 11/01/11 ರ @ಾರAೆಯ' Bಾ? ಪರ ವCೕಲರು ತಮ Bಾದ ಮಂ, , DDLR ರವರ ಸ(ಳ ತDEೆ ವರ?ಯನು* ಸಮFG ರು ಾ8 ೆ. ಮತು8 ಜIJನ' ತಂ?ರುವ @ಾರಗಳನು* ಪ"Kಾ8L ಅLೕಲನು* ಪ ರಸ ಸಲು ೋ ರು ಾ8 ೆ. ನಂತರ ಪ"5Bಾ?-3 ರವರು ಸMತಃ ಾಜ ಾO .ಾನ/ 0 1ಾ/2ಾಲಯದ' 5ೕಪ G ನಮ ಪರ

NC: 2025:KHC:9457

ಆOರುತ8 ೆ. ಪ"ಕರಣದ ಮೂಲ ದರEಾಸು8 ಕಡತ ಲಭ/ ರುವ ?ಲ ಮತು8 ಅSG ಾರರು ನಮ ತಂ ೆಯವ ಂದ ಜTೕನನು* Uೋಗ/ (Lease) ಪVೆ?ರು ಾ8 ೆ ಎಂದು Bಾ?ಸು ಾ8 ೆ. ಇದ ೆ ಅSG ಾರರು ಪ"5C"X , 1ಾವ ಗಳY Uೋಗ/ ೆ ಪVೆ?ರುವ ?ಲ. ಬದ<ಾO ಸದ ನಂಬ ನ' ಅನZಕೃತBಾO Kಾಗುವ .ಾ, ೊಂಡು ಬಂ?ರು ೆ8ೕ1ೆ ಎಂದು Bಾ? ರು ಾ8 ೆ. ಇದರಂ ೆ ಪ"ಕರಣದ @ಾರAೆಯನು* ಮು ಾ8ಯ ೊ , ಸ(ಳ ತDEೆಯನು* ಸMತಃ .ಾಡಲು ಅ\]ಾ"ಯ ವ/ಕ8 ಪ, ದಂ ೆ ಪ"ಕರಣದ

1ಾ/2ಾಲಯದ (ಒ.ಎ^.192/99) ಆ ೇಶವನು* ಗಮD ೆ. ೕಲ ಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ 6ನ*<ೆಯ' ಗಮDಸ<ಾO, ದರEಾಸು8 ಮಂಜೂ ಾರರು KಾMZೕನ ರುವಂ ೆ ಪ ಾ _ೕ, .ಾಡ ೇ ಇರುವ ದು ತಕ ಾರುಗ ೆ ಾರಣBಾOರುವ ದು ಕಂಡು ಬರುವ 6ನ*<ೆಯ' ಈ 1ಾ/2ಾಲಯವ ೆಳOನಂ ೆ ಆ ೇಶ Dೕ, ೆ."

6. As could be seen from the above reasoning, the

Deputy Commissioner does not accept the podi that was

conducted and comes to the conclusion that the records

were to be maintained in accordance with the decree

passed by the Civil Court. This order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner has been accepted by respondent No.5.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out

that not withstanding this order which directed the

authorities to abide by the decree passed by the Civil

Court, the Revenue authorities have merely gone back to

NC: 2025:KHC:9457

renaming the survey number as 164, but yet reduced the