Karnataka High Court
Riyazahmed Aniuddin Palegar vs The Commissioner City Corporation on 6 January, 2022
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.61524/2009 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
RIYAZAHMED ANIUODDIN PALEGAR
AGE:57 YRS., OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SHUBHASH NAGAR
BELGAUM
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S. BAWAKHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI BASAVARAJ S. BYAKOD,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER CITY CORPORATION
BELGAUM AT : BELGAUM
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BELGAUM AT: BELGAUM
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BELGAUM AT : BELGAUM
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.2 AND 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AS PER ANNEXURE-J DATED
10.03.1999 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
:2:
OF LAND RECORDS AS PER ANNEXURE-M DATED 15.10.2001 AND THE
NOTE ISSUED BY THE ADLR AS PER ANNEXURE-P DATED 31.01.2008
AND THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BE DIRECTED TO HOLD THE FRESH
ENQUIRY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner claims to be the owner of a residential plot measuring 90 feet East to West and 20 feet North to South bearing CTS No.4818/11 carved out of R.S. No.1004A/1 situated at Malmaruti Extension Area of Belgaum. It is claimed that the said plot was originally owned and possessed by Sri Asadsab Katalsab Mujawar. He sold it to Smt. Pramilabai Bhalchandra Chitnle in terms of the sale deed dated 08.10.1946. In turn Smt. Pramilabai sold the said plot in favour of Sri Rafeeq Ahmed Kutubuddin Inamdar dated 01.03.1989. The said Rafeeq Ahmed Kutubuddin Inamdar sold the property in favour of the petitioner in terms of a sale deed dated 25.09.1992. The petitioner sought entry of his name in the City survey records which was granted. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 submitted a report to the respondent No.2 to mutate the name of the Corporation in respect of the property bearing CTS No.4818/11 on the ground that the property was acquired by the Government of Karnataka and the City Corporation became the owner of the said property. :3: The respondent No.2 in terms of the Order dated 10.03.1999 directed City Survey Officer, Belgaum, to transfer the City survey records to the name of the City Corporation in respect of the properties bearing C.S. Nos.4818:11 and 4818:11A carved out of R.S. No.1004A/1. The Order passed by the respondent No.2 was challenged by a person named Chandrakant Pundalik Sangolli, who was one of the opponents in the proceedings before respondent No.2, in W.P. No.16805/1999 before this Court. This Court in terms of the Order dated 31.03.2000, set aside the Order dated 10.03.1999 passed by the respondent No.2 - Deputy Director of Land Records and remitted the case back to the respondent No.3 - Assistant Director of Land Records ('ADLR' for short), to pass an order on merits after giving notice to the parties. The ADLR in terms of the Order dated 15.10.2001, held that the property bearing C.S. No.4818/11 lay within the boundaries of the property that was acquired by the City Corporation, Belgaum. That the applicant therein was unable to point out any circumstance or document to indicate that the property purchased by him lay beyond the boundaries of the property acquired by the City Corporation. Hence, the ADLR in terms of the said Order dated 15.10.2001, directed the entry of :4: the name of the respondent No.1 herein in the city survey records of the property in question. It is stated that the petitioner herein after coming to know of the Order dated 15.10.2001, submitted an application to the respondent No.3 on 28.11.2007 requesting the said authority to delete the name of the Corporation in respect of the property in question and to continue his name in the city survey records and to conduct further enquiry after issuing notice to him. In response to the same, the respondent No.3 issued the endorsement dated 31.01.2008 to the effect that as per the direction of this Court in W.P. No.16805/1999, further enquiry was conducted and the Order dated 15.10.2001 was passed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order passed by the respondent No.3 and the Order dated 10.03.1999 passed by the respondent No.2 and the endorsement dated 31.01.2008 issued by the respondent No.3, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 was not able to demonstrate that the property in question was acquired and the fact that the respondent No.1 has kept quiet from the year 1942 till the name of the petitioner was entered in the City Survey records, made it :5: probable that the petitioner had valid title to the property in question. He further contended that out of the entire 700 acres of land that was acquired, there is a reference in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 that 70 acres 32 guntas of land was dropped out of acquisition and therefore, unless the respondent No.1 established that the property purchased by the petitioner lay within the limits of the property acquired, the respondent No.2 ought not to have entertained a dispute which fell within the realm of the Civil Court.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the questions raised by the petitioner were all disputed questions of fact that could not have been gone into by the respondent No.3. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has to establish his lawful title to the property before the competent Civil Court.
4. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the dispute essentially revolves around the question as to whether the property claimed by the petitioner lay within the limits of the property acquired by the erstwhile Government for the formation :6: of a residential layout and whether the property claimed by the respondent No.1 is the property which is claimed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, this is a disputed question of fact and law which could be adjudicated only by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and certainly not by the ADLR.
In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed off directing the petitioner to seek adjudication of his title before the competent Court of law. If such a suit is filed, the revenue entries in respect of the property in question shall be subject to the outcome of the Civil proceeding that may be filed by the petitioner herein. All contentions of the parties are left open. Any observation made by this Court in the course of disposal of this Writ Petition shall be construed as limited to the present case and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any findings recorded by this Court in the present writ petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sma