Karnataka High Court
Sri Jayadevappa vs State Of Karnataka on 9 October, 2023
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36674
WP No. 53412 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 53412 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI JAYADEVAPPA
ADOPTED S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/O HULUGINAHOLE VILLAGE,
ELEHOLE POST,
MALEBENNUR HOBLI,
HARIHARA TALUK-577 101
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
2. SRI.SHEKHARAPPA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
R/O HULUGINAHOLE VILLAGE,
ELEHOLE POST,
Digitally signed MALEBENNUR HOBLI,
by VIJAYA P
HARIHARA TALUK-577 101
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
KARNATAKA
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ R. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SAGAR V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36674
WP No. 53412 of 2017
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE-577 101
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
3. TECHNICAL ASSISTANT ATTACHED TO
THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DAVANAGERE-577 101
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
4. TAHSILDAR
HARIHAR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 101
5. SRI.B.THIPPANNA
S/O MAHESHWARAPPA,
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O HULUGINAHOLE VILLAGE,
ELEHOLE POST,
MALEBENNUR HOBLI,
HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, AAG FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI N.K. SIDDESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS W.P. IS UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 16.10.2017 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L,
CONFIRMING THE ORDER DTD.18.10.2012 PASSED BY R-3
VIDE ANNEXURE-H RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:36674
WP No. 53412 of 2017
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order at Annexure-H, whereby the Assistant Director of Land Records ("ADLR", for short) has cancelled all the previous 'phods' relating to Sy.No.5 of Huliginahole, Malebennur Hobli, Harihara Taluk and directed for fresh survey after notice to all concerned. The said order has been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner as per the order dated 09/16.10.2017.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no order regarding condonation of delay and further submits that petitioner has been in possession since 1970 and the same cannot be upset in 2012 by way of initiation of proceedings belatedly.
3. The learned counsel for respondent Sri.N.K.Siddeshwara submits that the actual dispute is only insofar as karab components of land is concerned while petitioner claims that there is 05 Guntas of karab in -4- NC: 2023:KHC:36674 WP No. 53412 of 2017 Sy.No.5 however, respondents claim that there is only 02 Guntas of karab.
4. It is submitted that fresh enquiry would lead to bringing the records in terms of entitlement of the parties regarding possession. Accordingly it is submitted that the orders need not be interfered with.
5. Heard both sides.
6. At the outset it must be noticed that the DDLR in his order at Annexure-H has observed as follows:
"«ZÁgÀuÉ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É CªÀ±ÀåªÉAzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢zÀÝjAzÀ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤Ãr ¢£ÁAPÀ 29.09.2012gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¸À.£ÀA. 5 gÀ°è ¸À.£ÀA. 5/1,2,3 JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃqÁVzÉ. ¥ÉÆÃrUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀĨsÀªPÀ ÀÆÌ ªÀåvÁå¸À«gÀÄvÀz Û É ºÁUÀÆ PÀqÀvz À ° À è£ À zÁR¯ÉU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ F PɼV À £ÀAvÉ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
DzÉñÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£A É iÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÁV ²æà E. UÉÆÃ¥Á®AiÀÄå, ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ¥À£À vÁAwæPÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àz¤ À «ÄvÀÛ ¨sÀÆ zÁR¯ÉU¼ À À G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPg À ÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉg,É DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1964gÀ PÀ®A 49(J) CrAiÀÄ°è zÀvª ÀÛ ÁzÀ -5- NC: 2023:KHC:36674 WP No. 53412 of 2017 C¢üPÁgÀzÀAvÉ ºÀjºÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀįÉèɣÀÆßgÀÄ ºÉÆç½, ºÀÄ®ÄV£ÀºÆ É ¼É UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.5 gÀ°è DVgÀĪÀ J¯Áè ¥ÉÆÃqÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥r À ¹ DzÉò¹zÉ. ºÀPÀÄ̼Àî J®èjUÀÆ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤Ãr ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÁUÀÆ C£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀAvÉ ºÉƸÀzÁV C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr DPÁgÀ§AzÀÄ zÀÄgÀ¹Û¥r À ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ vÀº² À ïÁÝgï, ºÀjºÀg,À EªÀjUÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.
ªÉÄð£À DzÉñÀª£ À ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄ ¨Ég¼ À Z À ÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¹ ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ 18.10.2012 gÀAzÀÄ §»gÀAUÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è WÉÆö¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."
7. Essentially in the finding of the DDLR there is discrepancy regarding possession of the parties vis-à-vis phodi proceedings. The said order has been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his revisional power while affirming the findings of the DDLR. It must be noted that the order of the DDLR refers to the plea regarding contention of delay. The finding of the DDLR is factual finding and it is impermissible to enter into the correctness of such finding and the finding of DDLR has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and such reiteration of the DDLR cannot be interfered with in the absence of any jurisdictional error. In light of such finding regarding non-interference with the impugned orders, the court -6- NC: 2023:KHC:36674 WP No. 53412 of 2017 refrains from entering into the adjudication of contention regarding delay in approaching the authorities at the first instance while observing that the contention has been adverted to and authority has then adverted to the merits. All that can be said in the passing is that the authority was conscious of the aspect of delay and then has proceeded on merits which approach need not be interfered with. The only grievance is that possession since 1970 is sought to be disturbed in 2012.
8. Needless to state on the basis of the order passed at Annexure-H as affirmed by the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-L, when the direction of the DDLR is implemented and sketch is prepared which if would indicate that the parties are in possession of each others property in excess of their entitlement, the process of recovery can be made only in civil proceedings.
9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. The order of DDLR as affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner is -7- NC: 2023:KHC:36674 WP No. 53412 of 2017 to be implemented within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE NP