Karnataka High Court
Sidharath S/O Ramesh Desai And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 17 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.P.NO.201080/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SIDHARATH S/O RAMESH DESAI,
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O JAINAPUR,
TQ. & DIST.VIJAYAPUR-586101.
2. RAMESH S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR DESAI,
AGED about 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O JAINAPUR,
TQ. & DIST.VIJAYAPUR-586101.
.... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR
COUNSEL FOR SRI GEETA R. SINDHE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-1.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
2
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
4. HEMA W/O SIDDAPPA
@ APPASAHEB DESAI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O JAINAPUR,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JOHN POUL, COUNSEL FOR SRI B.C. JAKA,
ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2015 ON
THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RTS/REV/29/2013-14,
THE COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri John Paul learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
2. The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexure-E as well as the order 3 passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-A. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of the impugned order has allowed the revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In the said order, the Deputy Commissioner noticing the pendency of O.S.No.49/2012 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur has further held that the entry in the record of rights covered by the impugned order will be subject to the judgment and decree to be passed in O.S.No.49/2012 referred above.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that O.S.No.49/2012 is already decided and the same is dismissed. He would further submit that the suit in O.S.No.49/2012 is clubbed along with O.S.No.4/2013 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura and the suit in O.S.No.4/2013 is decreed passing a decree for partition.
4. Learned Senior counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, would not dispute the above said fact. 4
5. Since O.S.No.49/2012 is clubbed along with O.S.No.4/2013 referred above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner impugned in the writ petition is to be read in the context of disposal of O.S.No.49/2012 along with O.S.No.4/2013.
6. Under these circumstances, the entries in the property records of the properties which are the subject matter of the above said suits shall be changed in terms of the judgments and decrees referred above.
Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn