Karnataka High Court
Umesh S/O. Shetteppa Pattar vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2021
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NOs. 105608-609/2015 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Umesh, S/o. Shetteppa Pattar
Age: 54 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o. Antoor-Bentur
Tq. & Dist. Gadag.
2. Basappa, S/o. Shetteppa Pattar
Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o. Antoor - Bentur
Tq. & Dist. Gadag.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. V. M. Kharvi, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Rep. by its Revenue Secretary
Department of Revenue
M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru.
2. Deputy Commissioner
Dharwad District, Dharwad.
3. The Technical Assistant to
Deputy Commissioner
W.P.Nos.105608-609/2015
2
Ex. Officio Deputy Director of
Land Records
Deputy Commissioner's office
Dharwad.
4. Tahasildar
Navlagund Taluk
Navlagund, Dist. Dharwad.
... Respondents
(By Sri. H. K. Basavaraj, AGA for R1 to R4;
R5 - Served & unrepresented)
These Writ Petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Dharwad in case No.Revision/LR-05/2012-13 dated 17.01.2015
vide Annexure-J and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the
order passed by Technical Assistant to Deputy Commissioner and
Ex-officio DDLR in case No.Sub-Division/Appeal:56/2012 dated
23.08.2012 vide Annexure-D and etc.
These petitions coming on for Final Hearing this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. A writ of certiorari may please be issued quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad in case No.Revision/LR-05/2012-13 dated 17.01.2015 vide Annexure-J, b. A writ of certiorari may please be issued quashing the order passed by Technical Assistant to Deputy W.P.Nos.105608-609/2015 3 Commissioner and Ex-officio DDLR in case No.Sub-
Division/Appeal:56/2012 dated 23.08.2012 vide Annexure-D and etc.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners in possession of the property bearing Block No.167/1 of Majjigudda Village in Navalgund Taluk. The petitioners had applied to the Tahasildar, Navalgund for Phodi, Boundary fixation and preparation of P.T. Sheet in Block No.167/1 and 167/2. Accordingly, the Revenue Officers had fixed the boundaries and prepared the Phodi records. The same was questioned by respondent No.6 herein before the 3 r d respondent and since there was delay in filing the said appeal, an application for condoning the delay was also filed. The 3 r d respondent, after condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal, had allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the 4th respondent Tahasildar. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein had filed a Revision before the 2 n d respondent and the said Revision was dismissed W.P.Nos.105608-609/2015 4 vide order dated 17.01.2015, confirming the order passed by the 2 n d respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal filed by respondent No.6 before the 3 r d respondent was belated. He submits that, after service of notice in the said proceedings, within a span of one month, the said appeal was disposed of and he was not given proper opportunity to appear before the 3rd respondent and defend his case. He submits that the 2 n d respondent, in spite of knowing this aspect of the matter, has erroneously dismissed the Revision and therefore, he prays that the order passed by respondents No.2 and 3 may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the 3 r d respondent.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 6 t h respondent submits that the petitioner has also filed O.S.No.234/2012 before the Civil Judge, Navalgund for the relief of declaration and injunction and the said suit W.P.Nos.105608-609/2015 5 is still pending. She submits that the said suit is at the stage of evidence and after completion of the evidence, it is always open to the petitioner to file necessary application for local inspection and survey of the property in question.
5. I have considered the rival arguments and also perused the material on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have already approached the jurisdictional Civil Court and filed O.S.No.234/2012 as against the 6 t h respondent herein, for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the very same properties, which are the subject matter of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the 6 t h respondent has fairly submitted that, after the completion of recording of the evidence, the petitioners can file an application in the said suit for local inspection of the spot and therefore, it may not be necessary for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by respondents No.2 and 3 and remit the matter W.P.Nos.105608-609/2015 6 back to the 3 r d respondent. The order passed by the Revenue Authorities, which are impugned in this petition, are always subject to the outcome of the civil dispute inter-se between the petitioners and 6th respondent herein.
7. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, which are impugned in this writ petition, will always be subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S.No.234/2012, pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Navalgund, filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of declaration and injunction as against the 6 t h respondent herein.
Sd/-
JUDGE g ab