Karnataka High Court
Sri.Tanejappa Shettar S/O Bharamappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION No.102799 OF 2018 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI.TANEJAPPA SHETTAR
S/O BHARAMAPPA SHETTAR
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AREMALLAPUR VILLAGE,
MADLERI HOBLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri LAXMAN T MANTAGANI ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI SUB-DIVISION,
HAVERI.
3. THE TAHASHILDAR
RANEBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
2
4. SRI.ANNAPPA TALAWAR
S/O HALAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AREMALLAPUR VILLAGE,
MADLERI HOBLI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.A.R.RODRIGUES AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO:
(a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
DATED 17.03.2018 IN NO.RTS/Ti/Vahi-
1266/17-18 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE 'F';
(b) DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER
IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT
OF THE LANDS BEARING SURVEY
NO.190/1A OF AREMALLAPUR VILLAGE
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has assailed endorsement dated 17.03.2018 which is produced at Annexure 'F' by which, the Tahasildar has rejected petitioner's claim made in his application dated 19.01.2018, 3 since there is a remedy by way of an appeal available to the applicant before the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri, on the issue of change of entry in MR No.H-20/17-18 in respect of R.S. No.190/1A of Aremallapur village effected as per order of the Assistant Commissioner and that the applicant could also file an application before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, seeking appropriate relief.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 / Tahasildar could not have issued the said endorsement in respect of land bearing Sy.No.190/1a admeasuring six Acres situated at Aremallapur village. That the land in question was granted in favour of Smt.Durgawwa, grand-mother of respondent No.4 on 21.02.1968 under the Land Grant Rules by the then Assistant Commissioner as she was a land-less agriculturist. Thereafter, Mutation Entries came to be certified 4 in her name in M.E. No.3148. The grand mother of respondent No.4 Smt.Durgawwa on being granted the land in question was also subjected to a condition of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years. According to the petitioner, the land in question was sold under registered sale deeds dated 09.07.1990 and 08.12.1993. That petitioner purchased in two parcels of three Acres. Thereafter, his name was mutated in the revenue records pursuant to M.E. Nos.4406 and 4694.
3. During this period, respondent No.4 initiated action under Section 5 of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act' for the sake of convenience). The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 22.07.2017 allowed the said application.
5
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred Writ Petition No.108607/2017 [SCST] before this Court, which was disposed off by order dated 31.08.2017 reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to prefer an appeal under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2017, petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.100630 of 2017[S-RES] before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 11.10.2017 set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 22.07.2017 and directed the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri, to dispose of the application filed by respondent No.4 in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said proceeding is still pending consideration. In the interregnum, respondent 6 No.4 got his name entered in the revenue records by deleting petitioner's name. This is on the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.07.2017. Petitioner sought for re-entry of his name in the revenue records pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 11.10.2017. In response to the said application, respondent No.3/Tahasildar has issued the aforesaid impugned endorsement. Being aggrieved of the same, petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 on advance notice and perused the material on record.
8. It is noted that the impugned endorsement has been issued by respondent No.3 having regard to the proceedings between the respective parties which are detailed above. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said endorsement, 7 he could assail the same before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In that view of the matter, and on account of there being an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal available to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is not entertained and is dismissed as not maintainable reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy, if so advised.
9. In the event there is any delay in filing the appeal, pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court may be taken note of by the appellate authority. The petitioner is also at liberty to seek interim / protective orders before the said authority.
10. It is needless to observe that if any such application is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the same expeditiously and in accordance with law.
8
Office to return Annexure 'F' to petitioner's counsel forthwith subject to filing a copy of the same for the purpose of the record.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK/-