Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jayarama Reddy vs Sri. Ramakrishna Reddy on 29 November, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:49192-DB
WA No. 1632 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1632 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. JAYARAMA REDDY
S/O RAMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
MIDDILU, D.PALYA HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
GOWRIBIDANUR-561 208
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.R. ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SHAKAMBARI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE NANJIREDDY
R/AT MIDDALU GRAMA
D.PALYA HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
GOWRIBIDANUR-561 208
2. THE TAHSILDAR
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
GOWRIBIDANUR-561 208
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:49192-DB
WA No. 1632 of 2023
3. TALUK SURVEYOR
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
GOWRIBIDANUR-561 208.
4. DISTRICT TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
AND LAND DEPUTY DIRECTOR
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NALINA K, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.35161/2018 DATED
21/07/2023 IN DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:49192-DB
WA No. 1632 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Even though the appeal is listed for Preliminary Hearing, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeal is taken up for disposal.
2. Heard Sri. H.R.Ananthakrishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel Smt. Nalina.K., for Sri. S.K.Venkatareddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the writ appeal papers.
3. Learned counsel Sri. Ananthakrishnamurthy would submit that the relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1 is not in dispute. Initially, O.S.No.60/1992 was filed for partition, which ended in FDP.No.1/1997. Admittedly, respondent No.1 was not party in O.S.No.60/1992. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.63/2002 for partition against the appellant herein and others. The said suit ended in compromise, final decree was drawn on 28.10.2011 in accordance with the compromise arrived at between the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:49192-DB WA No. 1632 of 2023 parties. Thereafter, the appellant herein made an application to Tahsildar requesting for phodi and durasthi in respect of properties involved in the compromise decree dated 28.10.2011, which the Tahsildar allowed and directed for phodi and durasthi. Against which, the respondent No.1 herein filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and Ex-Officio, Deputy Director of Land Records, Chikkaballapur District, Chikkaballapur. Respondent No.4 herein under impugned order dated 27.11.2014 allowed the appeal and cancelled phodi and durasthi effected in pursuance to decree passed in O.S.No.60/1992 and directed for fresh phodi and durasthi. Challenging the said order, the appellant was before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition under impugned order dated 21.7.2023 has observed that respondent No.4 has passed the impugned order wherein it has been ordered that phodi and durasthi of the lands have been done in accordance with the order passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.63/2002. Aggrieved by the said observation, the appellant is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel Sri. Ananthakrishnamurthy for the appellant would contend that in pursuance to compromise -5- NC: 2024:KHC:49192-DB WA No. 1632 of 2023 decree in O.S.No.63/2002, no phodi and durasthi has taken place in respect of the property involved in the compromise decree. Thus, he prays for phodi and durasthi in terms of O.S.No.63/2002 as directed by respondent No.4 under impugned order dated 27.11.2014.
5. Learned counsel Smt. Nalina.K., appearing for respondent No.1 initially contended that phodi and durasthi has already taken place in pursuance to compromise decree passed in O.S.No.63/2002, but she was not able to show from the records phodi and durasthi that had taken place in pursuance to compromise decree passed in O.S.No.63/2002.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels and have gone through the entire records of the writ appeal. On hearing the learned counsels and on going through the records of the appeal, we do not find any document to indicate phodi and durasthi in pursuance to compromise decree in O.S.No.63/2002. If phodi and durasthi has not taken place in pursuance to compromise decree passed in O.S.No.63/2002, the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.4 was justified in directing fresh phodi and durasthi in pursuance to decree in -6- NC: 2024:KHC:49192-DB WA No. 1632 of 2023 O.S.No.63/2002. The observation of the learned Single Judge that phodi and durasthi of land have been done in accordance with the order passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.63/2002 is without any basis. Hence, that portion of the impugned order is set aside. In terms of order of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 is directed to carry out phodi and durasthi in terms of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.63/2002. Respondent No.3 to carry out phodi and durasthi within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, writ appeal stands disposed off.
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2023 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13