Hanumanth S/O. Timmanna Shanshi vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Hanumanth S/O. Timmanna Shanshi vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2012

Bench: Ajit J.Gunjal

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

            CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

     DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJAL

 WRIT PETITION NO.62226/2012(KLR-RR/Sur)

BETWEEN:

Sri.Hanumanth,
S/o.Timmanna Shanshi,
Age: 70 years, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o.Rolli Village, Tq. Bilagi,
Bagalkot.                             ...PETITIONER

     (By Sri.Jagadish Patil, Adv.)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,
   By its Secretary to Government,
   Revenue Department,
   M.S.Building, Bangalore-560 001.

2. The Deputy Commissioner,
   (Technical Assistant to
   Deputy Commissioner)(DDLR),
   Bagalkot, Bagalkot.

3. The Tahasildar Bilagi,
   Bilagi, Dist: Bagalkot.

4. Sri.Krishnagouda,
   S/o.Timmanagouda Patil,
   Age: 51 years, Occ:Agriculture,
   R/o.Bavalatti Village,
   Tq. Bilagi, Dist. Bagalkot.
                           :2:



5. Sri.Ranganagouda,
   S/o.Timmanagouda Patil,
   Age: 49 years, Occ:Agriculture,
   R/o.Bavalatti Village,
   Tq. Bilagi, Dist. Bagalkot.

6. Sri.Venkanagouda,
   S/o.Timmanagouda Patil,
   Age: 46 years, Occ:Agriculture,
   R/o.Bavalatti Village,
   Tq. Bilagi, Dist. Bagalkot.

7. Smt.Rukkamavva,
   D/o.Pundalikagouda Patil,
   Age: 55 years, Occ:Agriculture,
   R/o.Bavalatti Village,
   Tq.Bilagi, Dist: Bagalkot.

8. Smt.Yamanakka,
   D/o.Pundalikagouda Patil,
   Age: 24 years, Occ:Agriculture,
   R/o.Bavalatti village,
   Tq.Bilagi, Dist. Bagalkot.

9. Smt.Laxmi,
   D/o.Pundalikagouda Patil,
   Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture,
   R/o.Bavalatti village,
   Tq. Bilagi, Dist. Bagalkot.

10. Smt.Sudha,
   D/o.Pundalikagouda Patil,
   Age: 20 years, Occ:Agriculture,
   R/o.Bavalatti Village,
   Tq. Bilagi, Dist. Bagalkot.        ... RESPONDENTS

     (By Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R1 to R3)
                          ....

     This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-
aside Annexure `E' the order dated 28.12.2011 passed
                             :3:



by the respondent No.3 and Annexure `F' passed by
respondent No.2, as illegal and void by allowing this writ
petition.

      This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, the court made the following:


                        ORDER

The property in Sy.No.58/1 was divided and renumbered as Sy.No.58/1A and 58/1B respectively. The petitioner claims to have purchased 58/1A measuring 6 acres 5 guntas. Accordingly his name was entered in the Revenue Records. The grievance of the petitioner is that after 15 years, without notice to him, the entries are changed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has found that the sale deed, which is produced by the petitioner, does not disclose the boundaries.

2. It appears the Tahsildar has entered the name in the Revenue records with respect of the extent, which has been purchased by him. To my mind, the petitioner cannot have any grievance if the entry is in respect of the extent, which was purchased by him i.e., :4: 6 acres 5 guntas. To be more precise, the petitioner is required to have his rights, title and interest adjudicated in an appropriate Civil Court seeking a declaration.

Reserving liberty to do so petition stands disposed of.

3. Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court