Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ningappa Hanamappa Hebsur vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 July, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 104164/2019 (RR-SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.NINGAPPA HANAMAPPA HEBSUR
AGE:69, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
2. SRI VENKAPPA HANAMAPPA HEBSUR
AGE:67, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
3. SRI RANGAPPA HANAMAPPA HEBSUR
AGE:63, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
4. SRI KRISTAPPA HANAMAPPA HEBSUR
AGE:57, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
5. SRI ASHOK HANAMAPPA HEBSUR
AGE:52, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.C.COMPOUND GADAG
:2:
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
GADAG, DT:GADAG
3. THE TASHILDAR
GADAG, DT:GADAG
4. SRI GOVINDAPPA VENKAPPA HEBSUR
AGE:87, OCCP: AGRICULTURE,
R/O:KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
5. SRI HANAMAPPA TIMMANNA @
TIMMARADDI HEBSUR
AGE:63, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
6. SMT. RENAWWA W/O HEMANNA HEBSUR
AGE:50, OCCP:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
7. SRI GIRIYAPPA @ GIRISH HEMANNA HEBSUR
AGE:33, OCCP:SERVICE,
R/O:KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
8. SRI SANTOSH HEMANNA HEBSUR
AGE:33, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
9. SRI SHIVAPPA TIMMANNA
@ TIMMARADDI HEBSUR
AGE:55, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
10. SRI SOMARADDI BASAPPA HEBSUR
AGE:63, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
11. SRI SUNDRAWWA
W/O SUBHASA GOVINDARADDI
AGE:58, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:NAGAVI, DT:GADAG
:3:
12. SRI PANDAPPA BASAPPA HEBSUR
AGE:55, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
13. SRI HANAMAPPA BASAPPA HEBSUR
AGE:56, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
14. SRI ASHOK BASAPPA HEBSUR
AGE:50, OCCP:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:KURTAKOTI, DT:GADAG
15. SMT. KAMALAWWA W/O VENKAPPA VASAN
AGE:47, OCCP:HOUSEHOLD
R/O:KONNURI, TQ:NAVALGUND, DT:GADAG
16. SMT. LAXMAWWA W/O SHIVAPPA MALALI
AGE:45, OCCP:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:KONNURI, TQ:NAVALGUND,
DT:GADAG
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1/DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, GADAG
DATED 12.12.2008 BEARING NO.RTS/RA/SR-25/2016-18
AND THE ORDER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GADAG
DATED 24.01.2017 BEARING NO.RTS/A.P./59/2014-15.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:4:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner as also the order dated 24.01.2017. passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner.
2. The case of the petitioners is that;
2.1 The father of the petitioners was cultivating Revenue Survey No.479 measuring 17 acres 18 guntas. However, his brothers got the said survey number bifurcated as if there was a partition in the family. This having been done behind the back of their father Hanamappa, after coming into force of the Land Reforms Act, the said Hanamappa filed Form No.7 for the entire land. The brothers of Hanamappa also filed similar Form No.7 for the entire :5: land. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 18.11.1987 partly granted occupancy certificate in favour of the said Hanamappa and partly in favour of his brothers. 2.2 The said order came to be challenged before this Court in W.P.No.36993/2000, which came to be settled between the parties out of the Court and this Court recorded the same in its order dated 10.01.2006 and at the instance of the said Hanamappa, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as settled out of the Court.
2.3 The claim of settlement out of the Court is on the basis of 'Duristi Watni Patra' executed between Hanamappa and his brothers. 2.4 On the basis of the said order of this Court, the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Hanamappa, filed an application before :6: respondent No.3 to enter their names in respect of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.479. After issuance of notice, the names so were entered vide order dated 30.06.2014. 2.5 This order came to be challenged by respondents No.4 to 16, who are the children of the brothers of Hanamappa.
2.6 On the said challenge being made under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioners was cancelled, which order was challenged by the petitioners in an appeal under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, who has also dismissed the said appeal by his order dated 12.12.2018.
:7:2.7 It is these two orders that the petitioners have assailed in the present writ petition.
3. Sri. Neelendra Gunde, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that initially respondent No.2 and subsequently respondent No.1 ought to have taken into consideration the settlement arrived at between Hanamappa and his brothers vide 'Duristi Watni Patra' and make necessary entries in the revenue records in favour of the petitioners.
4. Heard Sri. Neelendra Gunde and perused the papers.
5. A perusal of the papers indicates that the order in Writ Petition No.36993/2000, which forms the very basis of so called settlement between Hanamappa and his brothers, is an unilateral settlement in the sense that such proceedings had already been abated against respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., :8: brothers of Hanamappa and in fact the said petition was dismissed as against those respondents on account of the petitioners not taking steps insofar as deceased respondents No.1 and 2 are concerned in those proceedings.
6. On a recall application being filed, it is the petitioners, who made an unilateral submission that the matter has been settled out of Court and recording the same this Court recalled the order of dismissal and thereafter dismissed the writ petition as settled out of the Court.
7. The said order cannot give rise to a claim on the part of the petitioners to contend that the matter has been settled out of Court on the basis of 'Duristi Watni Patra' which is neither stamped nor registered nor accepted by any authority or Court and thereby seek for mutation entries to be made in their favour.
:9:
8. In view of the same, I find that the orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2 are proper and correct.
9. The petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court to agitate their case.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab