Karnataka High Court
Sadashiva vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4876
WP No. 8932 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 8932 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SADASHIVA
S/O LATE HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT SUNAKDAHALLI VILLAGE
HARNAHALLY HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571107
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNEEL S NARAYAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Digitally signed by
JUANITA THEJESWINI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Location: HIGH VIDHANA SODUHA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001
2. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MYSURU
KRISHNARAJA BOULEVARD ROAD
MYSURU
MYSURU DISTRICT-570001
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HUNASURU SUB DIVISION
HUNASURU TALUK
MYSORE-571105
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4876
WP No. 8932 of 2021
4. THASILDAR
OFFICE OF THE THASILDAR
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
PERIYAPATNA-571107
5. EX OFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTORS
OF LAND RECORDS
MYSORE DIVISION
MYSORE-570001
6. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE
HUNASURU DIVISION
HUNASURU-571105
7. SHRI ERAIAH
S/O LATE MOLALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
8. KUMARA
S/O LATE MOLALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
9. MERRY
W/O LATE DORESWAY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 9 ARE
R/AT SUNKADAHALLI VILLAGE,
NILAVADI POST HARNAHALLY HOBLI,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSORE-571107
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1 TO R6
SRI. H. MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:4876
WP No. 8932 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH /
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT 23.06.2020 PASSED IN REVISION
PETITION NO.04/2014-15 BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-Q GRANT
AN AD-INTERIM ORDER OF STAY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure 'Q' dated 23.06.2020 passed by the respondent- Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District. The private respondents herein approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking revision of the durasthi and hissa numbering of Block Nos.1 and 2 of Sy.No.7 of Sunkadahalli, Harnahalli Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysuru. The Deputy Commissioner has given a factual finding that the available extent of land in Sy.No.7 is 12 acres and 16 guntas in terms of akarbund. It is not disputed that 3 acres and 30 guntas of land in -4- NC: 2024:KHC:4876 WP No. 8932 of 2021 Sy.No.7 was granted in favour of the petitioner's mother Smt.Ningajamma, W/o Halappa on 03.07.1974. The private respondents herein claim to have been granted 2 acres each in the year 1980. However, the Deputy Commissioner caused a local inspection and a report to be submitted at the hands of the Assistant Director of Land Records. The Assistant Director of Land Records submitted a report along with a sketch showing the possession of various persons including the petitioner herein and the contesting respondents. However, the learned Counsels for the petitioner as well as the contesting respondents jointly submit that the other persons who are found in possession have not been granted any land in Sy.No.7 and they are unauthorised occupants. Another aspect of the matter is that a 'nala' has been carved out of Sy.No.7 which runs from North to South almost in the middle of the said survey number.
2. During the course of these proceedings, attention of this Court was drawn to Annexure 'F' which is the oldest available document to show the manner in which the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:4876 WP No. 8932 of 2021 granting authority intended to grant lands in favour of the petitioner's mother and subsequently in favour of the contesting respondents herein. Block No.1 which is said to have been granted in favour of the petitioner's mother is shown as northern most side of Sy.No.7. Block No.2 is found below Block No.1.
3. In that view of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contesting respondents could not have approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 56 of the Act, to re-settle the phodi and durasth that was done way back in the year 1981.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents would submit that the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.105/2000 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, at Periyapatna. The suit was for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner herein. The Regular Appeal preferred by the contesting respondents before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur in R.A.No.38/2013 was dismissed on 04.08.2014 and thereafter the contesting respondents -6- NC: 2024:KHC:4876 WP No. 8932 of 2021 have preferred Regular Second Appeal in RSA No.1340/2014 which is pending consideration before this Court.
5. However, the learned Counsel would further submit that even according to the petitioner, the petitioner is not in possession of Northern portion of Sy.No.7. While pointing out to the report of the Assistant Director of Land Records, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents would submit that the petitioner is admittedly in possession of the lands identified at Sl.No.8 and 9 marked in green which is on the eastern side and below the northern portion, which measures about 1 acre 26 guntas only.
6. Having regard to these undisputed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent- Deputy Commissioner could not have entertained a revision petition under Section 56 at the hands of the contesting respondents herein. Nevertheless, since the petitioner is also not in possession of the lands in terms of the original sketch which is available at Annexure 'F' and it -7- NC: 2024:KHC:4876 WP No. 8932 of 2021 is shown in the report of the Assistant Director of Land Records that the Northern most portion shown as '12' is a vacant land and Sl. No.2 is in possession of one of the contesting respondents i.e., Merry W/o Doreswamy, it would be in the interest of the rival parties herein that they should jointly make a statement before the Deputy Commissioner that the northern most portion of Sy.No.7 measuring 3 acres and 30 guntas totally should be marked and the petitioner should be put in possession of the said land. If 3 acres 30 guntas are marked on the northern portion which would also include 'nala', the land towards southern portion should be marked to an extent of 6 acres or 2 acres each in favour of the contesting respondents herein.
7. On determination of such lands in favour of the parties herein which would also include the 'nala' running through them, appropriate orders may be passed by the Deputy Commissioner settling the matter by preparing a sketch and identifying the lands in respect of the petitioner as well as the contesting respondents herein. While doing -8- NC: 2024:KHC:4876 WP No. 8932 of 2021 so, notices shall also be issued to the other persons in occupation of the land in question and if they are found to be in unauthorised occupation, necessary action shall be taken by the Deputy Commissioner to evict them and ensure that the parties herein are put in possession of the respective shares that would be identified by the Deputy Commissioner. On the other hand, if such other persons have already filed applications in Form No.50, 53 or 57, then their applications shall be placed by the Tahasildar before the Committee for regularization.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order at Annexure 'Q' dated 23.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The Deputy Commissioner is also directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court with the help of the Assistant Director of Land Records, and identify the lands as has been directed hereinabove and pass orders settling the survey records as well as the revenue records. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of -9- NC: 2024:KHC:4876 WP No. 8932 of 2021 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
In view of the above, I.A.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-