Karnataka High Court
Ramaiah vs The Asst. Commissioner on 21 June, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.NO.2728/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
Ramaiah
S/o late Thimmaiah
Aged 64 years,
R/at: No.384/A, Old No.1193
Janathanagar,
Bogadhi,
Mysore. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.T.N.KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. The Assistant Commissioner
Mysore Sub-Division
Mysore.
2. The Tahsildar
Mysore Taluk,
Mysore.
3. T.Nagaraj
S/o late Thimmaiah
Aged 61 years,
2
R/at: No.206/1, Old No.457
Janatanagar, T.K.Layout,
Chamaraj Mohalla,
Mysore. ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.B.SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP FOR R-1 & 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEXURE-J THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2011
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RRT(A) 33/2010-11
AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is seeking for quashing of the order passed by first respondent herein in RRT(A) 33/2010-11 dated 05.11.2011 Annexure-J in these proceedings.
2. Heard Sri.Karumbaiah, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 and 2 who has taken notice on behalf of these respondents. Perused the records. 3
3. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is pursuant to a partition dated 19.09.92 entered into between members of the family of petitioner, third respondent and other members as per Annexure-D an extent of 7 guntas was allotted to the share of petitioner pursuant to which mutation was effected to the name of petitioner and said entry made in the revenue records came to be questioned by third respondent before first respondent and first respondent committed a serious error in setting aside the said entry holding that petitioner does not have any right over the property in question and accepting the contention of appellant therein i.e., third respondent herein. As such he seeks for quashing of the impugned order.
4. Per contra learned HCGP supports the order passed by Assistant Commissioner.
5. Perusal of the impugned order would clearly go to show that Sy.No.217/2 was measuring 2 acres 24 guntas and 4 was in the ownership of one Sri.Thimmaiah, father of petitioner and third respondent. On his demise all the legal heirs have succeeded to the estate of late Sri.Thimmaiah. On 04.02.95 an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas came to be acquired under the Urban Land Ceiling Act by the State. Thus an extent of 1 acre 4 guntas remained with the owners. However, second respondent Tahsildar surprisingly entered the names of petitioner, third respondent and other members of Sri.Thimmaiah family to an extent of 1 acre 9 guntas. Though third respondent herein contended that petitioner herein does not have any right, title or interest over the remaining extent of 1 acre 4 guntas said fact has not been accepted by Assistant Commissioner in as much as he has made observation that on the demise of Sri. Thimmaiah his legal heirs would be entitled to succeed to his estate and in the event of an agreement between legal heirs of late Sri.Thimmaiah khatha can be made to their respective names to an extent agreed amongst them or in the alternate to make joint khatha in their names to an extent of land remaining 5 with them after acquisition by issuing necessary direction to the jurisdictional Tahsildar in this regard and by virtue of issuing such direction earlier revenue entries made as per RRT/CR 6050/2008-09 and MR 121/2008-09 dated 16.03.2009 has been rightly set aside and matter has been remanded back to jurisdictional Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and to examine the records relating to acquisition of 1 acre 20 guntas in same survey number and pass suitable orders. Said order being passed on sound appreciation of facts, there is no infirmity whatsoever which calls for interference at the hands of this court. Further, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties since matter has been remanded to second respondent. Hence writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN