Karnataka High Court
Joger Shivaji S/O : Kpger Hanumanthappa vs Jogera Pakkirappa S/O : Jogera on 10 January, 2022
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.61711 OF 2010 (KLR, RR)
BETWEEN:
1. JOGER SHIVAJI
S/O. JOGER HANUMATHAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. JOGER NAGENDRAPPA @ NAGARAJ
S/O. JOGER HANUMATHAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
3. JOGER NAGAPPA
S/O. GIDDA RANAPPA @ RANAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O. LINGANAYAKANAHALLI,
KURAVATTI POST, TQ. HADAGALI
DIST: BELLARY.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PATIL M. H., ADV.)
AND:
1. JOGERA PAKKIRAPPA
S/O. JOGERA HANUMATHAPPA
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: LINGANAYAKANAHALLI,
KURAVATTI POST, TQ. HADAGALI,
DIST: BELLARY.
:2:
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET,
DIST: BELLARY.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV. FOR R1
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 AND R3 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERES PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSPET
UNDER ORDER NO.KUM.PAHANI/APPEALU:93:06-07 DATED
27.12.2008 AND ORDER PASSSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BELLARY UNDER NO.KUM/APPEALU:131:2008-
09 DATED 08.02.2010 AT ANNEXURE-H AND J RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 27.12.2008 in Appeal No.93/2006-07 under Section 136 (2) of the Karanataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (henceforth referred as "Act of 1964") by which the name of respondent No.1 was ordered to be entered in the revenue records relating to survey Nos.264/A2 and 264/B2 of kuravatti village, Hadagali taluka, which was confirmed by respondent :3: No.3 under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964 in Revision Petition No.131/2008-09 dated 08.02.2010.
2. The petitioners claimed that the aforesaid land was owned and possessed by Joger Hanumanthappa and that they were children of the said Joger Hanumanthappa. They claimed that the land stood in the name of Joger Hanumanthappa and after his death, the petitioners partitioned the aforesaid land and thereafter got their names entered in the revenue records. Respondent No.1 whose father's name was also Joger Hanumanthappa challenged the revenue entries in the name of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not related to Joger Hanumanthappa and that they have no interest in the aforesaid lands. Respondent No.2 noticed that respondent No.1 was entitled to get his name entered in the revenue records and therefore allowed the appeal and directing the revenue entries to be recorded in the name of respondent No.1. The petitioners filed revision petition before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 after perusing the records, held that the name of respondent No.1 appeared in the revenue records and therefore the order passed by respondent No.2 was just and proper.
:4:
3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the respondent No.1 was trying to establish his identity and his right, title or interest over the lands in question, he ought to have filed a civil suit and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are incompetent to determine the rival claim of the petitioners as well as respondent No.1, which were based on contentions that were not admitted by each other.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the revenue records in respect of aforesaid lands from the year 1966 and onwards indicated the name of Joger Hanumanthappa, who is the father of respondent No.1. He submitted that the petitioners were not related to Joger Hanumanthappa and therefore respondent Nos.2 and 3 were justified in restoring the name of respondent No.1 in the revenue records.
6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not have undertaken :5: the exercise of identifying whether the petitioners were the children of Joger Hanumanthappa or not and whether the petitioner had any subsisting right, title or interest in the land referred above. Therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not have undertaken the exercise of deciding the rival claims of the parties but must have directed the parties to seek adjudication of their dispute before the Civil Court.
7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off directing that the revenue entries as it exists today shall be maintained and the parties may work out their remedy before the Civil Court. It is needless to mention that the revenue entries shall be subject to the result of the proceedings before the Civil Court.
8. All contentions are left open.
9. The learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of 10 days.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMM