Karnataka High Court
Paramananda S/O Satappa Yaragal vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 19 April, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3085
WP No. 202234 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 202234 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SHRI PARAMANANDA S/O SATAPPA YARAGAL
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREBEVANUR, TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPURA 586111
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT
Digitally signed VIJAYAPURA-586101
by RENUKA
Location: High 2. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
Court Of
Karnataka TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DDLR
VIJAYAPURA-586101
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
INDI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586209
4. THE TAHASILDAR, INDI
TQ: INDI DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586209
5. SHIVANNA S/O KAMANNA YARAGAL
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O HIRE BEVANUR, TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586111.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3085
WP No. 202234 of 2022
6. SHRI NINGAPPA S/O KAMANNA YARAGAL
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIRE BEVANUR, TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586111.
7. SMT. SANGEETA W/O SIDRAM VIJAPUR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/P HANDRAIL, TQ: AKKALKOT
DIST: SOLAPUR, MAHARASHRA-413216.
8. SMT. SHIVAGANGAVVA W.O KAMANNA YARAGAL
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O HIRE BEVANUR, TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP
FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT, ORDER OF DIRECTION IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING, ANNEXURE- F, VIZ., THE ORDER DATED
25.02.2021 IN RVN/PHS/31/2019-20 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3085
WP No. 202234 of 2022
ORDER
Heard Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
"(a) issue a writ, order of direction in nature of certiorari quashing, annexure- f, viz., the order dated 25.02.2021 in RVN/PHS/31/2019-20 passed by the respondent No.1 in the interest of justice and equity."
3. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of 8 acres 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.102/1 of Bevanur village, Indi Taluk, Vijayapura District. In respect of fixing the boundaries, there were disputes. Therefore, petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.185/1986 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Indi, which came to be decreed on 19.08.1994, wherein, respondent Nos.5 to 8 are party defendants and they did not file any appeal. Instead, respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed O.S.No.184/2016 and the same is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Civil Court.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3085 WP No. 202234 of 2022
4. When the matted stood thus, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records ('DDLR' for short) in No.PHS/APL/SR-6/2018-19. The said appeal, on contest, came to be allowed by the DDLR by the Order dated 13.02.2019 vide Annexure-D.
5. Being aggrieved by the said Order, respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, without noticing that there is already a decree in favour of the petitioner herein, took note of the pending suit in O.S.No.184/2016 and annulled the Order passed by DDLR, vide Annexure-F. Therefore, writ petitioner is before this Court challenging Annexure-F.
6. Per contra, Sri S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not decreed and what has been ordered is only an order of injunction and not declaration that petitioner is the owner of the property. Therefore, Deputy Commissioner was justified in passing the Order vide Annexure-F. He also contended that a comprehensive suit is filed by respondent Nos.5 to 8 in -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3085 WP No. 202234 of 2022 O.S.No.184/2016 seeking declaration that they are the owners of the property in dispute.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader also supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is already an order passed by the competent Civil Court which is not appealed by respondent Nos.5 to 8. Whether at all based on the said Order, the DDLR was competent to make the necessary correction in the land records cannot be gone into by this Court in view of pendency of O.S.No.184/2016.
10. It is always open for respondent Nos.5 to 8 to get the land records rectified, if they succeed in O.S.No.184/2016. Till such time, the Order of the DDLR has to be up held.
11. Accordingly, a case is made out to quash Annexure-F. -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3085 WP No. 202234 of 2022
12. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Annexure-F is quashed.
(iii) However, the Order passed by the DDLR vide Annexure-D is subject to result of suit in O.S.No.184/2016.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm Ct:si List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48