Karnataka High Court
Smt Sayeeda Khatoon vs The Deputy Commissioner Bidar District on 12 February, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.15550 OF 2007 (KLR-RES)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION No.15419 OF 2007 (LR)
IN W.P. No.15550 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
Smt. Sayeeda Khatoon,
Aged 54 years,
Wife of Sayed Shah Mahmood Hussaini,
Resident of Allyabad Village,
Bidar Taluk,
Bidar District.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri H.C. Shivaramu, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bidar District,
Bidar.
2
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Bidar District, Bidar. (in the premises of
Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar)
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri A.G.Shivanna, Additional Advocate General -I for
Smt. B.P.Radha, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1
and 2)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned
communication dated 3.9.2007 at Annexure-E.
IN W.P.No.15419 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
Sayeda Khatoon,
Wife of Sayed Mohammad Hussaini,
Aged about 54 years,
Resident of Aliabad Village,
Taluk and District Bidar.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri H.c.Shivaramu, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Principal Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore 560 001.
3
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bidar District,
Bidar.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bidar Sub-Division,
Bidar.
4. The Tahsildar,
Bidar Taluk,
Bidar.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri A.G.Shivanna, Additional Advocate General-I, for
Smt. B.P.Radha, Government Pleader for Respondents)
****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the communication
bearing No. Nil dated Nil of the first respondent addressed to
the second respondent vide Annexure -F.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the
court made the following:
4
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Shri A.G.Shivanna appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner is before this court in the following circumstances:
The petitioner claims that he was entitled to grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Survey No.59 of Aliyabad village, Puttur Taluk, measuring 31 acres and 37 guntas under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KCIA Act', for brevity), which was competent court to consider the application. The Land Tribunal, on reconsideration of the matter, had passed an order dated 6.10.1994 granting occupancy rights in respect of 31 acres 37 guntas as claimed excepting the structure declared to be historical monuments. The said order was challenged by the Karnataka Wakf Board 5 alleging that the lands had been declared as wakf under the Wakf Act, 1995 and had not been given an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed in a writ petition in WP 37585/1995. This court had allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration by an order dated 24.7.1998. Since the notification under the Wakf Act was confined only to 7 acres in land bearing Survey No.59, the petitioner realized that the Wakf Board could not have been aggrieved in respect of the remaining extent of 24 acres and 37 guntas. Therefore, the petitioner had moved this court by way of a civil petition in CP 632/1998. This court had allowed the review petition by order dated 15.6.2001 and modified the earlier order holding that the Wakf Board was only entitled to 7 acres and confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal to the remaining extent of 24 acres and 37 guntas in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner then applied before the Assistant Commissioner seeking permission under section 12(2) of the 6 KCIA Act, to sell the land granted to her. The Assistant Commissioner, Bidar by order dated 9.4.2002 had accorded permission for the sale of the land and on the basis of the approval accorded, the petitioner is said to have sold various portions of land to various persons and the revenue records have been effected in their favour.
Prior to and after the grant, the petitioner claims to have been in exclusive possession of the land and it is only on the petitioner having visited the Sub-Registrar's office that the petitioner was informed that the second respondent had received a communication from the first respondent stating that in the grant of land to the petitioner and the sale of land by the petitioner, several provisions of the KCIA Act and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 have been violated and directed the second respondent to ensure that no further transfers are made in respect of land bearing Survey No.59 of Aliyal village, of which occupancy rights had been granted to 7 the petitioner and that he should not transfer any portion of the land. It is that which is sought to be challenged in this petition.
3. Incidentally, the Deputy Commissioner is said to have addressed the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order, whereby grant of occupancy rights by the Assistant Commissioner, which has been affirmed by this court in the review petition. Incidentally, the Deputy Commissioner having sought leave to question the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner, by his letter to the Principal Secretary, the petitioner had sought to challenge the same as well in the connected petition.
4. Insofar as the request made by the Deputy Commissioner to the Principal Secretary, a reply has been issued by the Principal Secretary that there may not be any scope for filing an appeal. That apart, if there was an internal communication between the Deputy Commissioner and the 8 Sub-Registrar, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved. In that, the petition is misconceived and is premature. There is no positive action taken by the State to invoke any provision of law in divesting the petitioner of the land in question nor has it taken any action to proceed against the sale transactions that have taken place. If and when the State choose to do so, it shall be incumbent on the State to do so in accordance with the law. The law provides remedy in respect of any such action. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the Sub-Registrar or by the Deputy Commissioner to the Principal Secretary.
The petitions stand disposed of. All contentions are left open. It would be for the State Government to proceed in accordance with law and the petitioner shall avail the remedies that the law provides in respect of any action taken by the State.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv