Karnataka High Court
Smt. Leelavathi @ Nilamma vs The Joint Director Of Land Records on 12 December, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:51366
WP No. 2765 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.2765 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LEELAVATHI @ NILAMMA
W/O. LATE SEENAPPAGOWDA,
AGED 59 YEARS,
2. SRI SURESH
S/O LATE SEENAPPAGOWDA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
BOTH RESIDENTS OF IDAKANI VILLAGE,
HIREBYLE POST, KALASA HOBLI,
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 124.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NAGARAJ JAIN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by H
K HEMA AND:
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
MYSURU DIVISION,
MYSURU-570 011.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:51366
WP No. 2765 of 2024
4. SURVEY SUPERVISOR
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 132.
5. EDIKANI PRIMARY AGRICULTURE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
IDAKANI VILLAGE,
HIREBYLE POST,
KALASA HOBLI,
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 121
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI C. SATHISH,
S/O CHANDRU
(REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4;
R.5 - SERVED.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER BEARING NO.BHOOJAMNI.RI.PI.733/2021-22, DATED
18.11.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT
ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND PERVERSE, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:51366
WP No. 2765 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2023 passed by respondent no.1 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition), respondent nos.4 and 5 therein have preferred this writ petition.
2. Survey No.129 of Idakani village, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District is said to consist of vast extent of land. One V.P.Mohammed is said to have owned 2 guntas of land and one K.M.Mohammed is said to have owned 2 guntas of land. One late Seenappa Gowda, whose wife is petitioner no.1 and son is petitioner no.2 herein, purchased the said lands. When the lands were still owned by the said V.P.Mohammed and K.M.Mohammed respectively, they requested the authorities concerned to conduct necessary phodi and durasthi in respect of their lands and accordingly their respective 2 guntas of land were given separate survey nos.255 and 256 respectively. Phodi and durasthi of the said lands were conducted in the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:51366 WP No. 2765 of 2024 year 1968. As the formalities were not completed and the RTC reflected only Survey No.129, late Seenappa Gowda purchased the said lands (2 guntas of land each) from V.P.Mohammed and K.M.Mohammed by two separate sale deeds and in both the sale deeds, survey number was reflected as 129. On the ground that the sale deeds of late Seenappa Gowda depict Survey No.129, the earlier phodi and durasthi done in the year 1968 has been set aside, survey Nos.255 and 256 have been abolished and the lands purchased by the petitioners from V.P.Mohammed and K.M.Mohammed are now shown to be part of Survey No.129 and the impugned order is passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The case of the petitioners is that, based on the land owned by V.P.Mohammed, phodi and durasthi were conducted in respect of his land and was assigned survey No.255 and similarly in respect of the land owned by K.M.Mohammed survey No.256 was assigned and there is -5- NC: 2024:KHC:51366 WP No. 2765 of 2024 no error in the same and in spite of it, the impugned order is passed and the same is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4, upon instructions, submits that though survey nos.255 and 256 were assigned for 2 guntas of land each which belong to V.P.Mohammed and K.M.Mohammed respectively, for the reason that in the sale deeds executed by the said persons in favour of late Seenappa Gowda, the survey number is mentioned as 129, the earlier phodi and durasthi was abolished and the said lands are taken to be part of old survey no.129 and the said survey number 129 consist of vast extent of land and a fresh phodi and durasthi will be done in respect of the said survey number and new number will be assigned taking into consideration the present owners of the lands in the said survey number and in fact, the petitioners themselves claim to own an additional 2 guntas of land in the said survey number and that the impugned order is passed for administrative convenience and that there is no -6- NC: 2024:KHC:51366 WP No. 2765 of 2024 error in the said order and on the said grounds, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Admittedly, 2 guntas of land each were owned by V.P.Mohammed and K.M.Mohammed respectively in Survey No.129. They got phodi and durasthi conducted in respect of their lands resulting in their lands being identified by fixing the boundary and new survey numbers were assigned to their lands bearing survey Nos.255 and
256. They have sold the said lands in favour of the petitioners and as the required formalities were not completed and RTC did not reflect the new survey numbers 255 and 256, the sale deeds executed mentioned survey no.129 itself. However, the same does not alter the ownership rights of the petitioners herein as they are entitled to only 2 guntas of land from V.P.Mohammed and another 2 guntas of land from K.M.Mohammed. Further, the said lands are the lands situated in new survey nos.255 and 256 respectively. It is not anybody's case that fixing of boundaries, conducting phodi and durasthi -7- NC: 2024:KHC:51366 WP No. 2765 of 2024 resulting in Survey nos.255 and 256 is erroneous. The impugned order is passed merely on the ground that while executing the sale deeds, V.P.Mohammed and K.M.Mohammed mentioned that the lands being alienated are part of Survey No.129 instead of Survey Nos.255 and
256. It is not anybody's case that the said lands are not part of survey nos.255 and 256. Admittedly, there is no error pointed out in the earlier order as to the earlier phodi and durasthi done which resulted in survey nos.255 and 256 being assigned to the lands concerned. As there is no such error, in my opinion, there is no need to abolish the said phodi and durasthi and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 18.11.2023 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.1 is set aside;
(ii) The names of the petitioners shall be shown in the revenue records as owners of Survey Nos.255 -8- NC: 2024:KHC:51366 WP No. 2765 of 2024 and 256 insofar as it relates to 2 guntas of land each and not in survey No.129;
(iii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh.