Karnataka High Court
Gangamma W/O Siddapura Pakkirappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14430
WP No. 101249 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 101249 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. GANGAMMA W/O. SIDDAPURA PAKKIRAPPA
AGE: 72 YEARS,
2. GUNDA JADEPPA S/O. LATE GUNDA
DODDABASAPPA @ BASAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS.
3. TALWAR NEELAMMA D/O. LATE GUNDA
DODDABASAPPA @ BASAPPA, AGE: 37 YEARS.
4. GUNDA MAREPPA S/O. LATE GUNDA
DODDABASAPPA @ BASAPPA, AGE: 39 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O. SOMALAPURA VILLAGE,
KURUGODU TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHRINIVAS K. NADAMANI AND SRI. B. VEERANNA, ADVS)
AND:
Digitally signed
by
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
Date:
BALLARI,
2023.12.13
11:15:04 +0530
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BALLARI-583101.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, KURUGODU, BALLARI-583227.
4. SHIVAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUN
AGE: 36 YEARS, WARD NO. 2,
AGALUR VILLAGE, KURUGODU TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583227.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESP. NO. 1 TO 3,
SRI. SURESH S. SHETTEMMANAVAR, ADV. FOR R4)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14430
WP No. 101249 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2022 IN
REV/APL/01/2021-22 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 04.01.2022 IN REVENUE/APPEAL/119/2021 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G THEREBY
CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2021 IN ROR DISPUTE CASE IS
NO.KAM/VIVAD/50/20-21 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AT
ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. Petitioners are questioning the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari as well as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari. In the aforementioned orders, the claim of the petitioners to have their names entered in the property records is rejected by setting-aside the order of the Tahasildar, Ballari.
3. Petitioners claimed that the property in question viz. Sy.No.98/2 of Somalapura Village, Kurugodu Taluk measuring 3 acres 62 cents belonged to their ancestors. They would contend that the names of the petitioners were erroneously deleted in the property records, as such, they moved an -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14430 WP No. 101249 of 2022 application to the jurisdictional Tahsildar to enter their names. The Tahsildar after due enquiry entered the names of the petitioners. Then the Tahasildar has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner holding that the entries are made erroneously as the petitioners had no title over the property. In the meantime, the petitioners had sold the property to respondent No.4.
3.2 Before the Assistant Commissioner, 4th respondent was not a party. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal. The order was questioned before the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioners. In the said proceeding also, 4th respondent was not a party. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioners are before this Court. The purchaser is now impleaded as 4th respondent.
3.3 Learned counsel for the petitioners and 4th respondent jointly submit that the property in question originally belonged to the ancestors of the petitioners and the same is purchased by 4th respondent.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14430 WP No. 101249 of 2022
4. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the land was acquired in the year 1963 and he has produced the documents at Annexure - R.1 along with the statement of objections. It is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners are not the owners of the land. The compensation is paid to the owners of the land after the acquisition of the land in accordance with law. It is also his contention that the persons who received the compensation, have filed an application for payment of interest and it is further stated that the interest is also paid to the persons who have received the compensation.
5. This Court has perused the records.
6. The Tahasildar is present before the Court with original records. The Tahasildar submits that the survey settlement took place in the year 1962 and the said records are in Tamil. At this juncture, revenue records are not available to find out as to who owned the property before acquisition. This Court is of the view that essentially, the dispute is regarding the title to the property and the same has to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. Hence, the following: -5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14430 WP No. 101249 of 2022 ORDER The petitioners or the 4th respondent may approach the civil court for an appropriate relief of declaration of title and the same shall be decided by the Civil Court in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents/authorities are not furnishing the records pertaining to the property in question prior to 1981.
If an application is filed by the petitioners before the respondents, all the records pertaining to the petition property shall be furnished.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37