Karnataka High Court
The Deputy Commissioner Bidar vs Smt. Sodu Bai W/O Lakshman Rao Mankar on 26 September, 2012
Author: D V Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D V Shylendra Kumar
1
WA NOs.10148/2011 & 50570-73/2012(KLR-RR-SUR)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A S PACHHAPURE
WRIT APPEAL NO.10148 of 2011(KLR-RR-SUR)
AND
WRIT APPEAL NOS.50570-73/2012
BETWEEN:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR, DIST:BIDAR
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
BASAVAKALYAN SUB DIVISION
BASAVAKALYAN, DIST:BIDAR
3. THE TAHSILDAR
HUMNABAD TALUK, HUMNABAD
DIST:BIDAR ... APPELLANTS
[BY SRI:SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, ADV]
AND:
1. SMT.SODU BAI
W/O LAKSHMAN RAO MANKAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O PENTAGE HOSPITAL ROAD
OMERGA, MAHARASTRA
2. SMT.KAMALA BAI
W/O SHANKAR AO MALGI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O CHITAGUPPA
TQ:HUMNABAD, DIST:BIDAR
2
WA NOs.10148/2011 & 50570-73/2012(KLR-RR-SUR)
3. SMT.ANJANA BAI
W/O RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O BEMALKHEDA
TQ:HUMNABAD, DIST:BIDAR
4. SMT.CHANDRAKALA
W/O LATE RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O HUMNABAD, DIST:BIDAR
5. SRI.ANGESH
S/O LATE RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/O HUMNABAD, DIST:BIDAR
6. SRI.AVINASH
S/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/O HUMNABAD, DIST:BIDAR
7. SRI.ASHOK
S/O LATE NARASINGHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O SHIVAPURAGALLI
TQ:HUMNABAD, DIST:BIDAR
8. SRI.NARAYAN RAO
S/O LATE NARASINGHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O SHIVAPURGALLI
TQ:HUMNABAD, DIST:BIDAR
9. SRI.KISHAN RAO
W/O LATE NARASINGHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O RATNAGIRI
MAHARASTRA STATE ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI:MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY, ADV FOR C/R7]
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2011
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.81021-81025/2011
3
WA NOs.10148/2011 & 50570-73/2012(KLR-RR-SUR)
(KLR-R-SUR) BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Writ Appeal is filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Bidar District questioning the legality of the order passed by a Single Bench of this Court on 12.04.2011 in WP No.81021-81025/2011 allowing the writ petitions and quashing the proceedings as at Annexure-R dated 18.09.1998 and Annexures-Y and Z and the follow up actions taken by the revenue officials pursuant to the order dated 18.09.1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
2. Subject matter is land measuring to an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.207/2 of Humnabad village, Bidar District.
3. This Court had quashed the proceedings of revenue authorities for cancellation of Saguvali chit and the patta issued in favour of the predecessor of the writ petitioner one by name Narasingh Rao for the reason that this land which was granted earlier was the subject 4 WA NOs.10148/2011 & 50570-73/2012(KLR-RR-SUR) matter of considerable litigation, ultimately made subject matter of the civil suit in OS No.63/1987 and the said Narasingh Rao had sought for declaration of title in respect of the very land and the suit having been decreed by the Civil Court, State has preferred Regular Appeal No.9/2007 before the District Court, the appeal also having been dismissed it was further made subject matter in RSA No.487/2008 and that appeal also having been dismissed, the litigation had attained finality and there was no way for the revenue authorities taking action contrary to the determination made by the Civil Court and therefore, Annexures-R, Y and Z had been quashed. It is against this order, the present appeal.
4. Sri.Shivakumar Tengli, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants submit that it is a Government Gairan land situated within the town limits of Humnabad and that the land had already been granted to Town Municipal Council, Humnabad and therefore, thereafter the land could not have been granted in favour of the writ petitioners etc., He has also urged other grounds.
5
WA NOs.10148/2011 & 50570-73/2012(KLR-RR-SUR)
5. It makes little difference as Civil Court has determined the rights of parties vis-à-vis respondents and the appellants. Even assuming for arguments sake that to be so, Town Municipal Council is a party to the suit proceedings and therefore this submission has no merit.
In the result, writ appeal is dismissed. Registry is directed to assign as many numbers to these writ appeals as were the number of writ petitions for the purpose of record, as the writ appeals are heard against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was an order passed in common in all writ petitions i.e., 81021-81025/2011 preferred by petitioners and all these writ petitioners are arrayed as respondents 1 to 9 in these appeals.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-