Karnataka High Court
Bhaurao S/O Digamer Rao And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 December, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.Nos.201339 & 205021/2015 (RR-SUR)
Between:
1. Bhaurao S/o Digamberrao
Age about 75 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Village Honnakeri
Taluka & District Bidar
2. Sunil S/o Subhashrao
Age: 30 Years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Village Honnakeri
Taluka & District Bidar
... Petitioners
(By Sri Naganna Sangoli, Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
Through its
Principal Secretary
Revenue Department
M.S. Building
Vidhana Veedhi
Vidhana Soudha
Bengaluru-01
2
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Bidar-585401
3. The Deputy Conservator
Forest Bidar
District Bidar-585401
4. The Tahsildar
Bidar-585401
...Respondents
(By Smt. Arati Patil, HCGP)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of
certiorari, or any other writ, or order, quashing the entry at
column No.11 of Annexures-E, E1 to E6 carried out by
respondents 2 and 4 with respect to the petitioners' land
Sy.No.93/a/a measuring 01 acres 11 guntas and
Sy.No.93/a/a, measuring 01 acres 11 guntas respectively
situated at village Honnakeri, taluka Bidar and etc.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Though matters are listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioners who claim to be owners of the lands bearing Sy.No.93/a/a, measuring 01 acres 11 guntas situated at Honnakeri, Taluka and District Bidar 3 are questioning entries made in the record of rights- Annexures-E, E1 to E5 in respect of said lands whereunder respondent Nos.2 to 4 have entered in column No.11 to the effect that in the said land Department of Forest has a right. As could be seen from the record of rights of the land in question produced at Annexures-A, A1 to A4, B, C, C1, D, D1 to D4 it would clearly indicate the names of the petitioners is reflected after mutation entry sanctioned by the 4th respondent on 06.03.1996 which land was then measuring 05 acres 04 guntas. In the purported partition which is said to have been taken place between the petitioners' father and uncle (petitioners' father's brother), said land was divided under said family partition under which partition 02 acres 22 guntas had fallen to the share of Manoharrao S/o Digambarrao who is said to have sold the property in favour of one Sri. Basavanappa and he is said to be in possession of the said land as is evident from the 4 revenue records-Annexure-B. Remaining land of 02 acres 22 guntas having been further divided between petitioners and their nephew to an extent of 01 acre 11 guntas each, the revenue records accordingly came to be mutated in the year 1998-99 vide Annexure-C. Accordingly, the name of the petitioners continued from the year 1998-99 till 2008-09.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that 2nd and 4th respondents have overnight changed the entries in the ROR relating to the land in question namely, entries have been made depicting that Forest Department has a right over the property and by virtue of the same, they are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in question. Hence, petitioners are before this Court.
4. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Naganna Sangoli, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and 5 Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for respondents.
5. It is the contention of Sri. Naganna Sangoli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that entry made in the revenue records as per Annexure-E, E1 to E5 is without notice to the petitioners and it is in violation of principles of natural justice and which is contrary to Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act ('Act' for short) and as such it is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that since order in question having been passed under Section 129 of the Act by the jurisdictional Tahasildar, same is an appelable under Section 136 (2) of the Act and petitioners without availing alternate efficacious remedy available under the act are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary 6 jurisdiction of this Court and as such she prays for rejection of the writ petitions.
7. It is no doubt true that availability of alternate remedy is a good ground for this Court to refrain from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. However, where it is alleged that there has been violation of principles of natural justice, the power available to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked which is one of the exceptions to the judicial restraint as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 22.
8. In the instant case, records on hand do not disclose that before impugned entries came to be made in the revenue records i.e., ROR relating to Sy.No.93/a/a notice having been issued to the petitioners when the rights of the parties would be 7 affected by making such entries, authorities are required to issue notice to them as otherwise it would be in contravention of principles of natural justice and in the instant case authorities having failed to issue notice to the petitioners before carrying out the entries made in the revenue records it would clearly indicate that it is in violation of principles of natural justice.
Hence, the following;
ORDER
i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed.
ii) The entries made in the revenue record in ROR-Annexures-E, E1 to E6 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.93/a/a, measuring 01 acres 11 guntas depicting in column No.11 that Department of Forest has a right is hereby quashed and with regard to Notification dated 27.12.1975- Annexure-F is concerned no opinion is expressed by this Court.
8
iii) Matter is remitted back to 4th respondent with a direction to issue notice to the petitioners and then proceed to pass orders in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL