Karnataka High Court
Shri. Laxman Satagouda Patil vs The Deputy Commissioner on 11 January, 2022
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.64249/2010 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. LAXMAN SATAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 72 YEARS R/O KHADAKALAT
TALUK CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM
PETITIONER
(BY SRI T.M. NADAF, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELGAUM DISTRICT, BELGAUM
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BELGAUM SUB DIVISION,
BELGAUM
3. THE TAHASILDAR
HUKKERI TALUK,
HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM
4. SMT. KALLAWWA
W/O RAMA JADHAV
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY
HER LEGAL HEIRS
RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 10 WHO
ARE ALREADY ON RECORD ARE
:2:
TREATED AS THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.4
AS PER THE ORDER DATED
09.02.2011
5. SMT. BHAGAWWA
W/O BALU PATIL
6. BHAIRU RAMA JADHAV
7. BABU RAMA JADHAV
8. VITHAL RAMA JADHAV
9. DUNDAPPA RAMA JADHAV
10 . SHEVANTA RAMA JADHAV
R-4 TO R-10
R/O KAMATANUR VILLAGE
TAL:HUKKERI,
DIST: BELGAUM
11 . SHRI. SUBHAS SIDAGOUDA PATIL
R/O KAMATANUR VILLAGE
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3
SRI M.B. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 10
RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 10 ARE TREATED AS THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 09.02.2011
SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.11
CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
17.01.2022)
:3:
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE /
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN
NO.RB.RTA.290/2006-07 AND NO.RB.RTA.327/2006-07
DATED:04/05/2010 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 04.05.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 in case Nos. RB.RTA.290/2006- 07 and RB.RTA.327/2006-07.
2. The petitioner owned 18 Acres 08 guntas of land in Sy. No.126 of Kamatanur village. Out of the aforesaid extent, occupancy rights in respect of 08 acres of land was granted in favour of a person named Smt.Akkatai Kakasaheb Wagai. The petitioner thereafter sold 08 acres 24 guntas of land to Sri Lingasaheb Shiddappa Desai, who in turn sold it to Sri Rama Babaji Jadhav under two sale deeds dated 03.09.1987 and 12.11.1987. Thus, what remained with the petitioner was 01 Acre 24 guntas. The land bearing Sy. No.126 was bifurcated as Sy. Nos.126/1, 126/2A and 126/2B. The petitioner and the purchaser namely, Sri Rama Babaji Jadhav, the predecessor of :4: the respondent Nos.4 to 10, sought identification of the boundaries and effect division accordingly. The Assistant Director of Land Records (for short, 'ADLR') deputed a surveyor to survey the land and assign sub-divided numbers to it. The surveyor submitted his report to the ADLR, who accepted it and assigned new Sy. Nos.126/1 and 126/2 in terms of Mutation Entry (M.E.) No.4085. The petitioner and Smt. Akkatai Vagai challenged the survey and the consequential P.T. sheet and forms before the Deputy Director of Land Records ( for short, 'DDLR'), Belgaum, on the ground that the survey was conducted without notice to them and that the surveyor had not followed the due process of law. The DDLR in terms of his Order dated 14.12.1990, allowed the appeal and set aside the P.T. sheet and Form Nos.H.F.XI and XII in case No.MPR.MH.326 in respect of R.S. No.126 of Kamatanur village, Hukkeri Taluk, on the ground that the surveyor had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. The petitioner and Smt. Akkathai Wagai armed with the Order of DDLR dated 14.12.1990 challenged M.E. No.4085. The respondent No.2 considering the fact that the survey was set aside by the DDLR, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Deputy Tahasildar, :5: Sankeshwar, in No.RTS.SR.30/89-90 dated 05.04.1990 and annulled M.E. No.4085 in respect of R.S. No.126 of Kamatnur village in terms of the Order dated 12.07.1991. Based on such an order, the petitioner informed the same to the Revenue Inspector of Sankeshwara, who initiated proceedings in M.E No.4543 on 12.11.1998.
3. In the meanwhile, Smt. Akkatai Wagai died and the property granted to her was succeeded by her sons Sri Sudhakar Wagai and Sri Ramesh Wagai to an extent of 04 Acres each. The respondent No.11 herein purchased 03 acres from one of the sons, namely, Sri Ramesh Wagai. After such purchase, the respondent No.11 and the purchaser of 08 acres 24 guntas of land in R.S. No.126 (Sri Ramu Babaji Jadhav) challenged M.E No.4543 in an appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 allowed the appeal in terms of the Order dated 05.01.2001 and set aside the mutation in M.E No.4543. The petitioner challenged this order before the respondent No.1 in a revision petition in which the case was remanded to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration in terms of the Order dated 23.08.2005. After such remand, the respondent No.2 reconsidered the matter in terms of the Order dated 03.10.2006 :6: and dismissed the appeal and upheld the mutation proceedings in M.E No.4543.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent No.11 herein and Sri Ramu/Rama Babaji Jadhav, the purchaser of 08 acres 24 guntas of land in R.S. No.126, filed two separate revision petitions before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 in terms of the Order which is impugned in the writ petition allowed the revision petitions and set aside the Order passed by the respondent No.2 in the first instance namely on 03.10.2006 and directed the Tahasildar, Hukeri, to enter the names of revision petitioners, namely, Sri Rama Babaji Jadhav, since deceased represented by his legal representatives i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 10 herein and Sri Subhash Sidagouda Patil, who is respondent No.11 herein, as per the registered sale deeds and other owners in the records of rights of the land bearing R.S. No.126 of Kamatanur village, Taluka Hukeri, in the following manner:
Sl.No. Name of Survey Extent Name
village Number entitled
1 Kamatanur RS A - Gs Revision petitioner
No.126 08.24 No.1
Shri Rama Babaji
Jadhav since
deceased By his LRs
:7:
1A. Kallawwa w/o
Rama Jadhav,
1B. Smt. Bhagawwa
Balu Patil,
1C. Bhairu Rama
Jadhav,
1D. Babu Rama
Jadhav,
1E. Shri Vithal Rama
Jadhav,
1F. Dundappa Rama
Jadhav,
1G. Shevanta Rama
Jadhav,
03.00 The Revision
Petitioner No.2
Shri Subhash
Sidagouda Patil
04.00 Shri Vagai Sudharkar
Kakasab
01.00 Vagai Ramesh
Kakasab
01-24 Patil Laxman
Satgouda
Total 18.08
Extent
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order of the respondent No.1, the present petition is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the consequence of the impugned Order passed by the respondent No.1 would be that the mutation proceedings in M.E. No.4085, which was not in consonance with the holdings of the land as found by the DDLR would be restored and therefore, :8: would result in an anomaly and that the petitioner has to start all over again / re-engage with the litigation. He submitted that the extent of the land that the petitioner held was 01 acre 24 guntas in Sy. No.126 and therefore, the respondent No.1 must have intervened only in so far as the land of the petitioner is concerned as there were documents of title in so far as the other respondents are concerned.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.11 on the other hand contended that the respondent No.11 had purchased 03 acres of land in R.S. No.126 and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was right in directing the revenue authorities to restore the names of the owners of the land in R.S. No.126 according to their holding. He submitted that no intervention is called for with the impugned Order of the respondent No.1.
7. I have considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.11.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner owned 18 acres 08 guntas of land in R.S. No.126 of Kamatanur village. It is also not in dispute that 08 acres of land was granted to Smt. Akkatai :9: Wagai by the Land Tribunal. Thus, what remained was 10 acres 08 guntas of land with the petitioner, out of which he disposed off 08 acres 24 guntas in favour of Sri Lingasaheb Shiddappa Desai, who in turn sold the same to Sri Rama Babaji Jadhav, the predecessor of respondent Nos.4 to 10 herein. Therefore, the total land available with the petitioner is 01 acre 24 guntas in R.S. No.126.
9. A perusal of the impugned Order passed by the respondent No.1 would indicate that to clear off all complications that arose out of the revenue and survey proceedings and to depict a clear bifurcation of the land sold by the petitioner and the land retained by him in order, Deputy Commissioner was right in directing Tahasildar to reinstate the names of respondent Nos.4 to 11 herein and two others in the revenue records in respect of various extents of land in R.S. No.126 of Kamatanur village as mentioned in the table given in the impugned order. Therefore, without disturbing the Order passed by the respondent No.1, it is appropriate to direct the Tahasildar to initiate required proceedings to reinstate the names of the petitioner herein as well as the names of the respondent Nos.5 to 11 herein in respect of the area/s mentioned in the Order passed : 10 : by the Deputy Commissioner. Consequently, the respondent No.3 - Tahasildar, Hukkeri, shall neither consider M.E No.4085 nor M.E No.4543 in respect of the land bearing R.S. No.126 of Kamatanur village. The respondent No.3 shall effect fresh mutation to bring about the names of the parties found in page No.4 of the impugned Order passed by the respondent No.1.
Writ Petition stands disposed off with the above observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma : 11 : RNJ: W.P. No.64249/2010 17.01.2022 ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO' This writ petition was disposed off on 11.01.2022. Before signing the autograph, it was brought to my notice that based on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 to 10 were treated as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.4 in terms of the Order of this Court dated 09.02.2011 and as such, amendment in the cause title was not carried out. Hence, the case is posted for being spoken to today.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if permitted, he will carry out necessary amendment to the cause title of the writ petition in view of the Order dated 09.02.2011.
Permission is granted.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma