Karnataka High Court
Sri R Shanakrappa vs The Assistant Commissioner on 12 June, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.No.9330/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI.R.SHANAKRAPPA
S/O SRI LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NO.31 KENCHANNAHALI
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE
2 THE THASILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE
2
3 THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
KENGERI HOBLI(HEMEGEPURA VILLAGE)
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE LETTER PART OF THE NOTE MADE
BY R-2 DATED 14.02.2012 IN PROVISIONAL ENTRY OF
M.R.NO.14/2011-12 AS EXTRACTED IN THE BODY OF
THE WRIT PETITION AS PER ANNEXURE-E ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, a note made in the mutation register entry i.e., M.R.NO.14/2011-12 dated 28.10.2011 -14.02.2012 at Annexure-E is sought for being deleted/quashed.
2. Heard Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, 3 learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. The only grievance of petitioner in this writ petition is that petitioner has purchased the land measuring 4 acres in Survey No.89 of Heemegepura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1999 and on account of Deputy Commissioner passing an order on 25.11.2000 directing the Tahsildar to take possession of the land, petitioner had approached this court in W.P.No.42986/2002 assailing the order dated 25.11.2000 and this court after considering the contentions raised by the respective parties by order dated 07.06.2006 at Annexure-C held that order dated 25.11.2000 is not sustainable and directed a fresh enquiry to be held by Tahsildar and direction was also given that if the change has been effected in the original records much prior and if the name of private parties 4 had been entered either in the name of the vendor of the petitioner or any other name is indicated, then as per the judgment of this court reported in 1989(1) KLJ 161 the only course open to the authorities is to take appropriate declaration from the Civil Court and thereafter change the revenue entries and contends that in pursuance to the said direction first respondent herein passed an order on 28.10.2011 to effect mutation as per the sale deed dated 26.04.1999 by making necessary entries in the revenue records and inspite of such order being made third respondent as per Annexure-E having effected the mutation entry has made a note as under which was uncalled for:
"89/p4 4-00 J. d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®vÀB ¸ÀPÁðj UÉÆêÀiÁ¼ÀzÀ d«ÄãÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. «±ÉõÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ RRT(2)CR-17/99 ¢£ÁAPÀ 25-11-2000 gÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ 5 ¸ÀàµÀÖ PÁgÀt ¥ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÁVzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ JA. Dgï. 14/11-12 C£ÀÄß «¯Éà EqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
¸À»/- gÁ.¤. ºÉ«ÄäUÉ¥ÀÅgÀªÀÈvÀÛ, PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÇç½, ¨ÉA.özÀ.vÁ.
4. As per order dated 25.11.2000 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District in RRT(2)CR/17/99-2000 the possession of land in question was ordered to be taken by evicting the respondents herein i.e., petitioner and one Smt.Thimakka namely, the vendor of the petitioner. This order was questioned before this court in W.P.No.42986/2002 by the petitioner herein and this court held that impugned order therein i.e., dated 25.11.2000 is unsustainable and directed the Special Tahsildar to hold a fresh enquiry.
5. Pursuant to direction given by this court in 6 W.P.42986/2002 on 07.06.2006 Special Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk has taken up the proceedings in RRT (Dis)65/2010-11 after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel appearing for petitioner and on scrutiny of records held there was no land grant in favour of Sri.Singarappa, S/o Singarappa by competent authority and as such held that entries reflected in the name of Smt.Thimmakka, W/o Sri.Singarappa who is vendor of petitioner as per inheritance khatha No.23/93-94 is illegal and also held alienation made by said Smt.Thimmakka in favour of petitioner as void since she had no right, title or interest over the land in question and as such second respondent held claim of Sri.R.Shankarappa (petitioner herein) to effect khatha in his name in the revenue records cannot be considered and rejected petitioner's claim and directed for entry being made as "Sarkari Kharab". Copy of the said order dated 03.11.2010 7 passed by second respondent is made available by learned Government Pleader along with a memo filed today.
6. Aggrieved by this order petitioner herein preferred an appeal under section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before first respondent herein in R.A. (S) 182/2011-12. Said appeal has been allowed and ordered for effecting mutation of the revenue records relating to land bearing Sy.No.89, measuring 4 acres to the name of the appellant therein i.e., petitioner herein.
Pursuant to which mutation entry has been carried out as per Annexure-E. A perusal of the said entry in the mutation register would reflect that apart from entering the name of the petitioner as ordered by first respondent a shara or an endorsement has been entered into in the revenue records which has been already extracted by me in paragraph 3 herein above. It 8 is this shara or endorsement which is prayed for being deleted by petitioner. A perusal of Annexure-E as well as shara made therein would go to show that said endorsement/shara is carried out pursuant to the order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner in RRT(2)CR- 17-99 dated 25.11.2000 which was the subject matter of consideration by this court in W.P.42986/2002 and admittedly the said order of Deputy Commissioner dated 25.11.2000 has been quashed. In that view of the matter endorsement or shara made by third respondent in the mutation register as per extract produced at Annexure-E cannot be sustained. It is also to be observed that in the said Annexure-E a reference is made to order dated 28.10.2011 passed in R.A. (S)182/2011-12 which categorically states that entry is to be made in the name of petitioner and said order does not specify or qualify that Tahsildar or revenue inspector is required to make such entries. In the 9 absence of such observation or direction made/issued in the order dated 28.10.2011 passed by first respondent I am of the considered view that third respondent has clearly exceeded his authority and jurisdiction in making endorsement/shara as extracted herein above and as such it cannot be sustained. In the memo filed today by learned Government Pleader enclosing the certified copy of order sheet in R.P.77/2012-13 which is a revision petition filed by second respondent before Deputy Commissioner against the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 28.10.2011 Annexure-D would go to show that order of Assistant Commissioner has been carried in revision by second respondent before Deputy Commissioner and there is no order of stay of the order dated 28.10.2011 Annexure-D and as such second respondent was not justified in making such shara or endorsement in Annexure-E. This court would not embark upon considering any 10 contentions in this regard in as much as matter is now pending before Deputy Commissioner and parties would be at liberty to raise all such grounds including question of maintainability of revision petition before Deputy Commissioner in the pending revision petition No.77/2012-13.
7. It would be needless to observe that entry made in the mutation register Annexure-E in so far as land in question would be subject to final adjudication of proceedings pending before any other authority and till such final adjudication is made in R.P.77/2012-13 or till the order dated 28.10.2011 passed by first respondent is stayed it requires to be implemented and as such entry made in Annexure-E cannot be sustained.
8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, following order is passed:
11
ORDER
1. Writ petition is hereby allowed.
2. Endorsement/shara/note made by third respondent as found in Annexure-E mutation register extract is hereby quashed, which would be subject to observation made herein above.
3. All contentions of both the parties are left open to be urged in R.P.77/2012-13.
4. No order as to costs.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR/SBN