Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shviaputra And Ors vs Smt. Shantabai And Ors on 20 July, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580
WP No. 204862 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 204862 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHVIAPUTRA
S/O BHIMARAO POL,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: PENSIONER/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KHB COLONY, SOLAPUR ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR.
2. SRI. ASHOK S/O SHARANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: C/O: S.S. PATIL,
BEHIND RAMAKRISHNA HOSPITAL,
CHALUKYA NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR.
3. SRI. SUBHASH S/O MALLAPPA MOGALI
Digitally signed by SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
VARSHA N RASALKAR
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
3A. SMT. NEELA
W/O SUBHASH MOGALI,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
3B. SMT. SUJATA
W/O VISHWANATH KALYANASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3C. SMT. SUNITA
W/O RAJENDRA HALASAGI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580
WP No. 204862 of 2019
3D. SRI. SHOBHIT S/O SUBHASH MOGALI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL R/O: MOGALI DRESSES,
NEAR MILAN BAR CHOWK,
VIJAYAPUR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHANTABAI
W/O MADIVALAPPA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O C/O M.S. PATIL
SHIVA NILAYA VIVEK NAGAR (WEST)
NEAR IBRAHIMPUR,
RAILWAY GATE
VIJAYAPUR-586101
2. SRI. RAVIKUMAR
S/O VEERANGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: C/O: SV PATIL,
INDI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR.
3. SRI. BAPUGOUDA
S/O ESHWARGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VIJAYAPUR.
4. SRI. SANTOSH
S/O ESHWARGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VIJAYAPUR.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPUR AT VIJAYAPUR-586101.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580
WP No. 204862 of 2019
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
LAND RECORDS,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GANESH S.KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R5 & R6;
R2-SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 & R4 HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED 20.07.2022)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE
NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19.09.2019 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN CASE
NO.RVN/PHS/APL/SR/42/2017-18 AS PER ANNEXURE-N AS WELL AS
THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2017 PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN
CASE NO.PHS/ APL/SR-99/2014-15 AS PER ANNEXURE-K.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction or any other order in the nature of writ quashing/setting aside the order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the 5th respondent in Case No.RVN/PHS/APL/SR/42/2017- 18 as per Annexure-N as well as the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the 6th respondent in Case No.PHS/APL/SR-99/2014-15 as per Annexure-K, in the interest of justice and equity.
b. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019
2. Indisputably, the land in Sy.No.112 situated at Bhutnal village, Vijayapur Taluk and District, measuring 9 acres 12 guntas out of which, 02 acres of land was acquired for the purposes of construction of Vijayapur-Solapur National Highway No.13. The petitioners claiming to have purchased 01 acre 10 guntas each from the original owner Sri.Ramdas S/o Balavanthrao Dhavare under three registered sale deeds dated 03.02.2005. Respondent No.1 claims to have purchased 03 acres 38 guntas under two different sale deeds, one for 01 acre 10 guntas and the other for 02 acres 18 guntas from one Sri.Rajashekhar S/o Shivanagouda Sirguppi in the year 2009 who had inturn purchased the said 03 acres 38 guntas from Sri.Ramdas S/o Balavanthrao Davare on 03.02.2005. Apart therefrom, two others i.e., respondent No.2-Ravikumar and respondent No.3-Bapugouda are stated to have purchased 01 acre each in the said survey number. The dates of the sale deeds are not clear from the records nor the -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019 counsel is able to point out the dates of such sale deeds.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds, a PT sheet was prepared at the request of the petitioners and it is aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 challenged the said PT sheet before the respondent No.6 by filing an appeal under Section 49(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, contending that the said PT sheet firstly does not take into account the acquisition of the land of 02 acres and secondly, the sale deed in favor of Rajashekhar and subsequent sale deed in favor of respondent No.1 has not been taken into consideration.
4. By way of the impugned order, 6th respondent allowed the appeal on 09.11.2017 vide Annexure-K and set aside the PT Sheet No.107 of 2006. The petitioners filed a revision under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The revision came to be dismissed on 19.09.2019 confirming the earlier -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019 order dated 09.11.2017 and it is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners are before this Court.
5. The contention of Sri.S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the PT sheet has been prepared on the basis of the sale deeds and on the basis of the boundaries of the property in the sale deeds which the respondent No.1 cannot have any grievance with. Respondent No.1 has purchased the property which is not in existence and at her request, no appeal could have been filed and these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the 6th respondent while passing the impugned order. His other contention is that respondent No.1 has purchased the property subsequent to the purchase made by the petitioners and respondent No.1 having purchased a non-existent property subsequently could not have filed an appeal in the manner as done. On these grounds, he submits that the above -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019 petition is required to be allowed and the impugned order is required to be set aside.
6. Sri.Ganesh S.Kalburgi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the PT sheet has been prepared for 09 acres 12 guntas without taking into consideration the acquisition made way back in the year 1972 for the formation of the national highway. As on today, national highway being in existence, 02 acres which had been acquired ought to have been excluded in the PT sheet by the official respondents on their own as soon as the acquisition took place and not having done so, respondent No.1 was constrained to approach respondent No.6 seeking for performing their statutory duties.
7. As regards the date of purchase, he submits that respondent No.1 has purchased 03 acres, 38 guntas under two sale deeds from Sri.Rajashekhar who had purchased the same on 03.02.2005 which is same -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019 date as that of the sale in favor of the petitioners and as such, they cannot be said to be subsequent sale deeds. Be that as it may, he submits that respondent No.1 had approached the 6th respondent for the purposes of carrying out the statutory duties as regards which the petitioners cannot have any grievance and on this ground, he submits that the above petition is required to be dismissed.
8. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 though served have not entered appearance.
9. Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that the order passed by the 6th respondent is proper and correct. Inadvertently, the land acquired had not been excluded in the earlier PT sheet. Taking into consideration the said aspect, respondent No.6 has passed a proper order. -9-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019
10. Heard Sri.S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Ganesh S.Kalburgi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Perused the papers.
11. The short question that arises in the present matter is whether on an acquisition of land, necessary entries in the revenue records, PT sheets and/or modification of the revenue entries or PT sheets is required to be made and can anyone have a grievance in relation thereto.
12. It is not in dispute that the land measured 09 acres 12 guntas out of which 02 acres was acquired leaving a balance of 07 acres 12 guntas. The sale deeds which have been detailed herein above in favor of Rajashekhar and the petitioners totally add up to 07 acres 12 guntas. However, there are two other sale deeds in favor of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for 01 acre each, which if taken into consideration would take
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019 the total extent of land to 09 acres 12 guntas which did not exist post the acquisition in the year 1972.
13. Though the dates of these sale deeds are not made available, the submission is that these sale deeds have also occurred post the acquisition. The original owner of the land is not before this Court. The petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 4 are purchasers from the original owner, having purchased the land post the acquisition, any interse dispute between them is not a matter which could be decided by a revenue authority like respondent No.6 to determine the rights of the parties insofar as the corrections and/or modification to the revenue entries are concerned.
14. Once there is an acquisition of land, it would be the statutory responsibility and duty on the part of each of the authorities to carry out the necessary corrections reducing the extent of land acquired from
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019 the extent of land reflected in the revenue documents if the entire land is not acquired and if the entire land is acquired to indicate in the revenue records the acquisition thereof with details. If the same is not done, then the extent of land shown in the revenue records will be more than the land which is available at site since a portion of the land had been acquired, taken possession of and put to use by the acquiring authority or the beneficiary of the acquisition.
15. Thus, I am of the considered opinion, that it was for the revenue authorities to have made the changes as soon as the acquisition was complete and not left the revenue records with the original extent of land without deducting the acquired land. As afore observed, the inter se disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.1 have not been addressed by respondent No.6 and rightly so, since respondent No.6 cannot deal with those disputes and
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019 if there are any disputes, it is for the aggrieved party to approach a Court of competent jurisdiction seeking for appropriate reliefs.
16. The above proceedings having arisen out of the inaction on the part of the respondent-State when carrying out necessary entries, it is but required for this Court to issue necessary directions to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to verify if corrections have been made in all the revenue documents post an acquisition having been completed and the extent of land reduced in those revenue records by indicating the quantum of land acquired with details of acquisition notifications and if the same is not done, to get the same done within a reasonable time period. If the entire land is acquired, the same to be indicated with details of the acquisition notification. A report in this regard to be placed on record.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019
17. The learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to inform the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department about the above direction.
18. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition stands dismissed. ii. The respondent No.6 is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the PT sheets deducting the land acquired for the National Highway and thereafter, to prepare a fresh PT sheet of the entire remaining extent without any demarcation of a particular subsurvey number.
iii. The petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are at liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction seeking for such reliefs as they deem fit if they are aggrieved by any action taken by them.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5580 WP No. 204862 of 2019 iv. Though the above petition is disposed, to report compliance relist on 22.08.2023 at 02:30 p.m. v. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending I.As. if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB/VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17