Karnataka High Court
Smt Swarupa Ravishankar vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 March, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9182
WP No. 4639 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 4639 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SWARUPA RAVISHANKAR
W/O LATE K RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PREVIOUSLY R/A NO.232
15TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS
BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070
PRESENTLY R/A FLAT NO.D10
JAIN HEIGHTS, ALTURA, NO.65/1B
SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD
KAIKONDARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560035.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NABEEL., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION
KOLLEGALA-574140
2. THE TAHASILDAR
GUNDLUPET TALUK
GUNDLUPET TALUK OFFICE
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571111
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9182
WP No. 4639 of 2024
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.N. MAHADESHWARAN., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2022 PASSED BY THE R1 IN
DISPUTE NO. 233/2021 AT ANNEXURE-M WITH RESPECT OF
THE LAND BEARING SY. NO. 87/7 (OLD SY. NO. 87/3)
MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 18 GUNTAS SITUATED
AT HOREYALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned endorsement dated 17.11.2023 issued by the respondent- Tahsildar, Gundlupet Taluk.
3. The petitioner purchased 1 acre and 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.87/3 of Horeyala village, Beguru Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 14.06.2010. The petitioner also purchased another extent -3- NC: 2024:KHC:9182 WP No. 4639 of 2024 of 1 acre and 18 guntas of land in the same survey number on the same date. However, the vendors in the two sale deeds are two brothers viz., Sri.Madanaika and Sri.Ninganaika. It appears that proceedings under Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961', for short) was initiated only in respect of the land purchased from Sri.Madanaika to an extent of 1 acre and 18 guntas. The orders were passed by the competent authority-Assistant Commissioner, on 03.12.2019 holding that the sale transaction was in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act, 1961.
4. However, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.17133/2021, challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner. This Court by order dated 22.09.021 set aside the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter, directed the respondent- Tahsildar, Gundlupet Taluk to restore the name of the petitioner as owner of the property in respect of 1 acre and 18 guntas in Sy.No.87/3, which was the subject -4- NC: 2024:KHC:9182 WP No. 4639 of 2024 matter of the proceedings initiated under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act, 1961. Consequent there to, the name of the petitioner was restored in the land records while removing the name of the government. However, the petitioner also gave a representation to the Tahsildar to enter the name of the petitioner in respect of the other extent of land measuring 1 acre 18 guntas purchased by the petitioner from Sri.Ninganaika. The Tahsildar issued an endorsement dated 08.04.2022 at Annexure-L, directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
5. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.233/2021. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 22.11.2022 directing the Tahsildar to verify from the records having regard to the claim made by the petitioner that she had purchased 1 acre and 18 guntas of land from Sri.Ninganaika under a registered sale deed dated 14.6.2010 and proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 128 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:9182 WP No. 4639 of 2024 and 129 of the Act, 1964. However, the Tahsildar once again issued the impugned endorsement dated 17.11.2023 at Annexure-N stating that in respect of the restoration of the name of the purchaser whose transaction attracted under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act, 1961, the Tahsildar had no authority and therefore, the petitioner was required to approach the Assistant Commissioner.
6. It is clear from the facts narrated hereinabove that the Tahsildar has confused himself between the two lands purchased by the petitioner. Insofar as the land purchased from Sri.Madanaika, which were proceeded against under the provisions of Section 79A and 79B of the Act, 1961, this Could has already set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and consequent thereto, the name of the petitioner has been entered in the land records. It is also given to understanding that the two pieces of lands have been assigned new survey numbers as Sy.No.87/3 and 87/7. Sy.No.87/3 is the land which was purchased by the petitioner from Sri.Madanaika and his name has been entered in the RTC. We are only concerned with the other -6- NC: 2024:KHC:9182 WP No. 4639 of 2024 piece of the land purchased by the petitioner from Sri.Ninganaiak, which was not the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 79A and 79B.
8. In that view of the matter, the Tahsildar is required to proceed to enter the name of the petitioner in the land records after issuing notice to the vendor Sri.Ninganaika or his legal heirs, as the case may be, in terms of Section 128 of the Act, 1964.
9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 17.11.2023 at Annexure-N issued by the respondent-Tahsildar is hereby quashed and set aside. The Tahsildar is directed to issue notice to the vendor or his legal heirs, having regard to the sale deed dated 14.06.2010 executed by Sir.Ninganaika in favour of the petitioner and pass necessary orders for entering the name of the petitioner in the land record insofar as 1 acre and 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.87/7 is concerned. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:9182 WP No. 4639 of 2024 Ordered accordingly.
10. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file Memo of Appearance within a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL CT: JL