Ramesh S/O. Yalaguradappa Kolkar vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ramesh S/O. Yalaguradappa Kolkar vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2021

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                             1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE DAY OF 18TH DECEMBER, 2021

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                WP NO 82851 OF 2013 (LR)

BETWEEN

1 . RAMESH S/O. YALAGURADAPPA KOLKAR
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. BOMMANAGI,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT

2 . PARASAPPA S/O. YALAGURADAPPA KOLKAR
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. BOMMANAGI,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT
                                           ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.SAJID GOODWALA, ADD.,
FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,)

AND

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE

2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT,
DIST: BAGALKOT
                            2




3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT,
DIST: BAGALKOT

4 . THE TASHILDAR
BAGALKOT,
DIST: BAGALKOT

5 . GOPALKRISHNA S/O. PRALHADACHARYA GUDI
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. BOMMANAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT

6 . SUSHILENDRACHARYA

S/O. SWAMIRACHARYA BRUNDAVAN
AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. BOMMANAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT

7 . SRIDEVIPRALHAD @ AMRUTGUDI @ DESAI
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. BOMMANAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R4;
     SRI.PRAKASH HOSMANE, ADV., FOR R5;
     R6 AND 7 ARE SERVED )

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED:25/07/2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 3




                            ORDER

The father of respondent No.5 by name Pralhadacharya Gudi filed declaration in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.159 measuring 18 acres 10 guntas situated at Bommanagi, Bagalkot Taluk, among other lands. The Land Tribunal, Bagalkot, by order dated 05.08.1973 granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.5 to an extent of 11 acres 20 guntas on the northern side of Sy.No.159 and remaining 6 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.159 was treated as excess land and it was also noted that the father of respondent No.5 has surrendered 6 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.159 on the ground that the same is in excess of ceiling limit.

2. Petitioner claims that he purchased 6 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.159 from the owner of the 4 land in question through a registered sale deed dated 26.08.2011, since the name of the owner of the land in question continued to appear as owner in possession in the record of rights in respect of the land in question. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records concerned.

3. When things stood thus, respondent No.5 filed an application with respondent No.4 so as to mutate the name of the Government in respect of 6 acres 30 guntas comprised in Sy.No.159 on the ground that the land in question was surrendered in favour of the Government. Respondent No.4 by order dated 25.07.2013 directed to enter the name of the Government in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.159 to an extent of 6 acres 30 guntas and further directed the Revenue Inspector concerned to take possession of 5 6 acres 30 guntas in favour of the Government. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Land Tribunal without issuing notice to the vendor of the petitioner has passed an order holding that 6 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.159 is an excess land. He further submits that the Respondent No.4 without issuing to these petitioners has passed the impugned order. Hence, he submits that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State would submit that having regard to the fact that the land in question is surrendered in favour of the Government by the tenant, the order passed by 6 respondent No.4 is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that the tenant having surrendered the land in question, the Tahasildar is justified in passing the impugned order.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. Admittedly, name of the vendor of the petitioners was continued in the revenue records in respect of the land in question after the order passed by the land tribunal. Thereafter, the names of the petitioners were mutated in possession and cultivation column of the revenue records of the land in question pursuant to the registered sale deed executed in his favour. However, the 4th respondent on an application 7 submitted by the 5th respondent, has deleted the name of the petitioners from the revenue records and further ordered to enter the name of the Government and take possession of the land in question. The said order is passed without issuing notice to the petitioners which is in violation of principles of natural justice. The rights of the petitioners have been adversely affected in view of the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 25/7/2013 passed by the 4th respondent at Annexure-K is hereby quashed. 8

iii) Liberty is reserved with the 4th respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law after notifying the interested parties.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vb/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court