Karnataka High Court
Sri Anthony Alex D'Souza vs The Joint Director Of Land Records on 18 April, 2017
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.1850/2006 (KLR,RR/SUR)
BETWEEN
SRI ANTHONY ALEX D'SOUZA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O CTS NO 1557, PLOT NO. 232,
GUMAT-MAL, HINDWADI,
BELGAUM.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VYAS DESAI, ADV. FOR JAGADISH PATIL ADV.)
AND
1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
BELGAUM DIVISION,
BELGAUM.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
BELGAUM.
3. THE CITY SURVEYOR, BELGAUM
BELGAUM.
4. SRI. VIJAYKUMAR S/O NARAYAN JOSHI
AGED MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE,
GENERAL MANAGER, THE PIONEE URBAN
CO-OP. CREDIT BANK LTD, BELGAUM
2
5. SMT VIOLET
W/O F. RODRIGUES,
AGED MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. EWS-96, HUDCO COLONY,
ASHOK NAGAR, BELGAUM.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
(SRI. M.G.NAGNURI, ADV FOR R4)
(SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE FOR R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY R1-JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELGAUM IN
CTS/ REV/ SR/ 25/04-05 DT. 14.3.2005 VIDE ANX. E AND THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS, BELGAUM IN CTS. AP.304/03 DT. 12.8.2004 VIDE
ANX. D AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING-B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Director of Land Records, Belagavi at Annexure-D and its confirmation order dated 14.06.2005 passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Director of Land Records at Annexure-E
2. I have heard Sri. Vyas Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Veena Hegde, learned High Court Government 3 Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Sri. M.G.Naganuri for respondent no.4 and Sri. Srinand A Pachhapure for respondent no.5. Perused the writ petition and Annexures produced along with the writ petition and statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 and Annexure produced along with the said statement of objections.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as per the compromise decree passed by the III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge Court, Belagavi in O.S. No.150/2001 the suit property was allotted to the share of the petitioner. Thereafter parties to the compromise decree got the compromise decree registered with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and then petitioner submitted an application to the ADLR City Survey, Belgavi City for certifying the entry effected in the name of the petitioner in the property register card in respect of the petition schedule property and with a further request to delete the name of the 4th respondent Bank from the encumbrance register. The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City after hearing all the concerned parties and considering the objections filed by the 5th respondent, by order Annexure-A allowed the application submitted 4 by the petitioner and certified the entry effected in the property register card in the name of the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property and declined to certify the entry effected in the property register card on 28.03.2002 from the encumbrance register record. As such the order passed by The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City at Annexure-B is in accordance with the compromise decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.no.150/2001 and provisions of the Land Revenue Act and Rules thereto.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 5th respondent being 1st defendant in O.S.No. 150/2001 and parties to the compromise decree passed by the IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) & CJM., Court at Belagavi in the said suit could not have objected for the petition filed by the petitioner before the ADLR City Survey, Belgaum for certifying the entry made in the property register card in respect of the petition schedule property on the basis of the compromise decree passed in O.S.no. 150/2001.
5. The learned Counsel submits the 2nd respondent has committed an error in entertaining the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent and setting aside the order passed by the 3rd 5 respondent by allowing the appeal. He submits petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-D challenged the same by preferring a Revision Petition before the 1st respondent who by order Annexure-E dismissed the Revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, he submits both the orders passed by the 2nd and 1st respondents at Annexure-D and E respectively are contrary to the compromise decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.no.150/2001 and the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and therefore are not sustainable in law and hence he prays for allowing the writ petition as prayed for.
6. Smt. Veena Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 supports the orders passed by the 2nd and 1st respondents at Annexures-D and E respectively and she submits there is no illegality in the said orders warranting interference of this Court and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Sri. M.G.Naganuri, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.4 submits property originally belonged to one 6 Anthony Alex D'souza father of the petitioner and 5th respondent. The said Anthony Alex D'souza having absolute right, title and interest over the property as evident from the revenue records gifted a portion of the property in favour of the petitioner (his Son) and the remaining portion in favour of his daughter (5th respondent) under two separate registered gift deeds of common dated 05.01.2000. Accordingly, petitioner approached the ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City requesting him to certify his name entered in the property register card. The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City considering the registered gift deed certified the entry effected in his name and in the name of the 5th respondent in the property register card in respect of the petition schedule property. Thereafter, the 5th respondent approached 4th respondent for availing loan on the security of the property gifted in her favour by her father. The Bank satisfying with the title of the 5th respondent to the property advanced loan on the security of the property by obtaining registered equitable mortgage. Accordingly, the name of the Bank was entered in the encumbrance register. Petitioner by obtaining a compromise decree in collusion with the other members of his family approached the ADLR requesting to certify the entry 7 effected in his name in the property register card without making the Bank as party to the said proceedings. Learned counsel submits the Bank aggrieved by the said order of The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City at Annexure-B challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent considering the above aspects of the matter allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ADLR at Annexure-B and even Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the 1st respondent-Joint Director of Land Records as per Annexure-E. As such there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders Annexure-D and E passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively and he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent neither supports the petitioner nor the Bank.
9. It is not in dispute that the property bearing CTS No.1557 of Hindwadi, Belagavi originally belonged to Anthony Alex D'souza father of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. It is also not in dispute that his name entered in the revenue records as property was coming under the revenue jurisdiction at that time 8 petitioner also does not dispute the execution and registration of the gift deed dated 05.01.2000 by the original owner Anthony Alex D'souza in favour of his daughter Smt. Voilet W/o. F.Rodrigues (the 5th respondent in the writ petition) in respect of a portion of the said property. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit did not seek the relief for cancellation or declaration of the said gift deed executed by the Anthony Alex D'souza in favour of the 5th respondent in the suit as null and void. However, it is a compromise decree obtained by the petitioner in O.S.No. 150/2000 on the basis of a compromise entered between the petitioner and his family members. Thereafter, the petitioner got the said compromise decree registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar and on the basis of the said registered partition deed, he approached the ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City requesting to certify the entry effected in his name in the property register card and delete the name of the Bank from the encumbrance register. The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City without considering the above aspect of the matter and without issuing notice to the Bank allowed the petition submitted by the petitioner and ordered for certifying the entry 9 effected in the name of the petitioner in the property register card and order for deleting the name of the Bank from the encumbrance register. The Bank aggrieved by the order passed by the ADLR City Survey, Belagavi challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent considering the illegality committed by the ADLR City Survey, Belagavi has rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ADLR City Survey, Belagavi. Therefore, first respondent was justified in dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent.
10. I have carefully gone through both the orders passed by the 2nd and 1st respondents at Annexure E and D respectively and I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this court. Hence, the following:
ORDER Writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
The ADLR City Survey, Belagavi City is hereby directed to continue the name of the 4th respondent-Bank in the encumbrance 10 register till 5th respondent clears the loan of the 4th respondent-
Bank.
Sd/-
JUDGE VB