Karnataka High Court
Smt Thimmakka vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 September, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.578/2022
C/W
W.A. NOs.587/2022, 588/2022(KLR-RES)
IN W.A.NO.578/2022:
BETWEEN:
SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O LATE H. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST, R/A HAROHALLI
GARDENS, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 101
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
1. SRI H.V. RAJU
S/O LATE H.V. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
2. SRI H. V. RAVINDRA
S/O LATE H.V. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI SARAVANA S, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
2
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEKDAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND
RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
4. SMT. N. LALITHAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O NAGARAKUNTE
KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
5. SMT. N. JAYAMMA
W/O NAGARAJ
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE, KARRATIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
6. SMT. N. MANJULA
W/O JAYAPPA
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O SOMAYAJULAPALLI
RONUR HOBLI AND POST
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
3
7. SMT. YESHODA
W/O LATE N. MUNIKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE, KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
8. SMT. GIRIJAMMA
W/O LATE N. SRIRAM
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
9. SMT. N. SULOCHANA
W/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE, KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
10. SMT. PADMAMMA
W/O R. ASWATHANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA
KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 101.
11. R. MANJUNATHA
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
12. R. VENKATACHALAPATHY
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
13. SMT. KALAVATHI
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
4
KATTARIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
14. RAJESWARI
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA
HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 101.
15. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
W/O V. MUNICHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/A SAHUKAR BEERAPPA'S
GARDEN, KOGILAHALLI VILLAGE
KNS POST, KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR R-1, 2, 3;
SRI PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADV., FOR C/R-15)
IN W.A.NO.587/2022:
BETWEEN:
SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O LATE H. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
1. SRI H.V. RAJU
S/O LATE H.V. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
2. SRI H. V. RAVINDRA
S/O LATE H.V. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/A: NO.37
NEAR PAVAN COLLEGE
HAROHALLI GARDENS
KOLAR TALUK
5
KOLAR - 563 101. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI SARAVANA S, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEKDAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
3. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND
RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
4. THE ASSISTATNT DIRECTOR OF LAND
RECORDS, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
KOLAR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
KOLAR - 563 101.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
KOLAR - 563 101.
6. THE TAHSILDAR
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O NAGARAKUNTE
6
KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
8. SMT. N. LALITHAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O NAGARAKUNTE
KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
9. SMT. N. JAYAMMA
W/O NAGARAJ
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE, KARRATIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
10. SMT. N. MANJULA
W/O JAYAPPA
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O SOMAYAJULAPALLI
RONUR HOBLI AND POST
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
11. SMT. YESHODA
W/O LATE N. MUNIKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE, KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
12. SMT. GIRIJAMMA
W/O LATE N. SRIRAM
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
7
13. SMT. N. SULOCHANA
W/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE, KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
14. SMT. PADMAMMA
W/O R. ASWATHANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA
KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 101.
15. R. MANJUNATHA
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
16. R. VENKATACHALAPATHY
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
17. SMT. KALAVATHI
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
18. RAJESWARI
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA
HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 101.
19. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
W/O V. MUNICHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/A SAHUKAR BEERAPPA'S
8
GARDEN, KOGILAHALLI VILLAGE
KNS POST, KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR R-1, 2, 3;
SRI PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADV., FOR C/R-15)
IN W.A.NO.588/2022:
BETWEEN:
SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O LATE H. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
1. SRI H.V. RAJU
S/O LATE H.V. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
2. SRI H. V. RAVINDRA
S/O LATE H.V. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/A: NO.37
NEAR PAVAN COLLEGE
HAROHALLI GARDENS
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 101. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI SARAVANA S, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEKDAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
9
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
3. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND
RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101.
4. THE ASSISTATNT DIRECTOR OF LAND
RECORDS, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
KOLAR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
KOLAR - 563 101.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
KOLAR - 563 101.
6. THE TAHSILDAR
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O NAGARAKUNTE
KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
8. SMT. N. LALITHAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O NAGARAKUNTE
KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
9. SMT. N. JAYAMMA
W/O NAGARAJ
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
10
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE, KARRATIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
10. SMT. N. MANJULA
W/O JAYAPPA
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O SOMAYAJULAPALLI
RONUR HOBLI AND POST
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
11. SMT. YESHODA
W/O LATE N. MUNIKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE, KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
12. SMT. GIRIJAMMA
W/O LATE N. SRIRAM
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
13. SMT. N. SULOCHANA
W/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY
TEMPLE, KATTARIPALYA
KOLAR - 563 101.
14. SMT. PADMAMMA
W/O R. ASWATHANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA
KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 101.
11
15. R. MANJUNATHA
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
16. R. VENKATACHALAPATHY
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
17. SMT. KALAVATHI
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
18. RAJESWARI
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O KATTARIPALYA, KASABA
HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 101.
19. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
W/O V. MUNICHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/A SAHUKAR BEERAPPA'S
GARDEN, KOGILAHALLI VILLAGE
KNS POST, KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR R-1, 2, 3;
SRI PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADV., FOR C/R-15)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION
4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE PASSED IN WP NO.35301/2017 CLUBBED WITH
WP NO.2106/2017 AND WP NO.14814/2017, DATED
14/03/2022 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS.
12
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These three intra court appeals arise from the common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.35301/2017, W.P.No.2106/2017 and W.P.No.14814/2017 and therefore, these appeals are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
3. Facts leading to filing of these appeals narrated in brief are, respondent Nos.15/19 namely Smt.Lakshmidevi had purchased the land bearing survey No.19 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas situated at Harohalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk under the registered sale deed dated 16.12.2013 and another extent of 23 guntas in the very same survey number under the registered sale deed dated 22.05.2014 and thereafter, obtained a Form-11E sketch. Objection was raised by the appellant herein who is the owner of the adjacent land 13 bearing survey No.19/1 contending that during the course of an undisputed point of time in the year 1929, Phodi was conducted and Haddubast was fixed and therefore, after a lapse of considerable period of time, the same should not be changed. In spite of the same, the authorities had issued Form-11E sketch to respondent No.15/19 and also set-aside the earlier Phodi which was conducted on 11.01.1929. The fresh Phodi was conducted and Form-11E sketch was issued by the Tahasildar pursuant to a order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in a suo motu proceedings initiated by him in which he had passed an order dated 13.08.2018 directing the Tahasildar to conduct fresh Phodi and issue Form-11E sketch. The said order dated 13.08.2018 was challenged by the appellant in Revision Petition No.23/2014 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed on 21.07.2017. Subsequently W.P.No.14814/2017 was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar directing issuance of Form- 11E sketch and to carry out Phodi and Durasth work in respect of survey No.19. W.P.No.2106/2017 was filed 14 challenging the survey notice dated 11.01.2017, while W.P.No35301/2017 was filed challenging the order dated 13.08.2013 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision petition No.23/2014.
4. The learned Single Judge vide the order impugned disposed of the aforesaid these three writ petitions by a common order holding that the authorities had erred in carrying out a fresh Phodi and also in issuance of Form-11E sketch. However, he had refused to quash the same on the ground that it would lead to complication and multiplicity of proceedings. The learned Single Judge also observed that he do not intend to quash the Phodi and Durasth proceedings and Form-11E sketch to enable respondent No.15/19 to approach the competent civil Court to seek declaration of his rights in respect of portion of land as marked in survey sketch which was filed along with memo dated 01.02.2022 before him. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred these appeals. 15
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the order to hold a fresh Phodi and Durasth as well as issuance of Form-11E sketch was bad in law and liable to be quashed, he was not justified in not quashing the same in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein a prayer was specifically made for a writ of certiorari. He submits that the learned Single Judge having found that the order issued by the authorities were not sustainable in law, ought to have quashed the same. He submits that since the learned Single Judge has reserved the liberty to respondent No.15/19 to approach the competent civil Court to seek a declaration of his right in respect of land in question, the learned Single Judge was not justified in saying that he does not intend to quash the proceedings as it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. He also submits that in the event of respondent No.15/19 alienating or changing the nature of the land, the appellant will be put to hardship.
16
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.15/19 submits that the appellant's interest has been taken care of by the learned Single Judge by observing that he shall not be evicted from the portion of land in question by respondent No.15/19 without following due process of law and therefore, he cannot have any grievance against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guljar Singh & Others vs. Deputy Director (Consolidation) and others1 and submits that if the revenue authorities find that the basic year entries in the revenue records are wrongfully derived, they can modify the same, even after a lapse of time and therefore, merely for the reason that Phodi and Durasth was settled in the year 1929, it cannot be said that the revenue authorities cannot modify or disturb the same.
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel submits that the judgment in the case of Guljar Singh (supra) has been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1 (2009) 12 SCC 590 17 appreciating the power of competent authorities under Section 48 of the UP Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953 and as such a provision is not provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
8. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is very clear that the learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that authorities concerned were not justified in issuing an order for holding a fresh Phodi and Durasth and also in issuing a Form-11E sketch. However, he has refused to quash the said order on the ground that it would lead to further complication and multiplicity of proceedings to enable respondent No.15/19 to approach the competent civil Court to seek a declaration of his right in respect of portion of land as marked in survey sketch which was filed along with a memo dated 01.02.2022.
9. The material on record would go to show that the earlier Phodi was conducted on 11.01.1929. Respondent No.2 had initiated suo motu proceedings in the year 2013 and had passed an order on 13.08.2013 18 directing the Tahasildar to hold a fresh Phodi and Durasth and also to issue Form-11E sketch. The said order has been confirmed in the revision petition by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. On the strength of Form-11E sketch issued to respondent No.15/19, the sale deeds dated 16.12.2013 and 22.05.2014 were executed in his favour in respect of land bearing survey No.19 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas and 23 guntas respectively. In the event of quashing the order passed by the authorities for holding a fresh Phodi and Durasth and also to issue Form-11E sketch, it would have the effect of unsettling the aforesaid two registered sale deeds which are executed and registered in the name of respondent No.15/19 and in the said event he would not be in a position to seek appropriate remedy before the civil Court in respect of the portion of land in survey No.19 which is allegedly in the possession of the appellants.
10. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to quash the orders 19 passed by the revenue authorities for holding fresh Phodi and Durasth, to issue Form-11E sketch and also the subsequent order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
11. However, since a submission is made on behalf of the appellants that in the event the respondent No.15/19 alienates or changes the nature of the portion of land as marked in the survey sketch which was filed along with memo dated 01.02.2022 it would lead to further complication and multiplicity of proceedings, we deem it necessary to direct respondent No.15/19 not to alienate or change the nature of the said portion of land as marked in survey sketch which was filed along with memo dated 01.02.2022 before the learned Single Judge in respect of which land, the learned Single Judge has observed that respondent No.15/19 is required to approach the competent civil Court to seek for a declaration of his right, till he obtain appropriate orders in this regard from the civil Court. All other observations made by the learned Single Judge stand unaltered. 20
12. The judgment in the case of Guljar Singh (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for respondent No.15/19 has been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreting the powers under Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and since such a provision of law is not found in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of.
SD/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-
JUDGE NMS