Karnataka High Court
Shantesh S/O. Basappa Gamanagatti vs The Deputy Director Of Land Records on 19 March, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.68322/201 1 (KLR-RR-SUR)
BETWEEN:
Sri Shantesh Sb Basappa Gamanagatti
Age: 61 yrs, 0cc: Retd. Govt. Servant,
R/o Mane Chawl, Saidapur,
Dharwad, Dist: Dharwad.
.PETITIONER
(By Sri Laxman T. Mantagani, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Deputy Director of Land Records,
Dharwad.
2. The Assistant Director of Land Records,
(City Survey) Dharwad.
3. The City Survey Officer,
Dharwad , Dist: Dharwad.
4. Sri Ajay S/o Vasant Kamat,
Age:42 yrs, 0cc: Business,
R/o H.No.6, 1st Floor,
Gayatri Apartments, Indira Nagar,
Hubli.
5. Sri Shivanagouda
S / o Basanagouda Police Goudar,
Age: 80 yrs, 0cc: Business,
2
R/of No.98/2 Kelageri Road,
Dharwad,
.RESPONDENTS
(By Smt K. Vidyavati, Adv. for Ri -R3)
Sri. J.S.Shetty, Adv. for R4 & R5)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
dated 17/11/2011 passed by the 1st respondent vide
annexure-F and etc.
This writ petition coming on for orders this day the
Court made the following:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of the Land Records, Dharwad. A copy of the impugned order is produced at Annexure-F. As per Annexure-F, the Deputy Director has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents 4 and 5 herein, challenging the order dated 0 1.09.2008 passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records, City Survey, Dharwad to record the name of the petitioner herein in the city survey records pertaining to CSNo.11/A/1D/A1A1A, 3
2. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the property in question on 25.08.2008 from the vendors Devadhan Konesagar and Aksha Devadhan Konesagar. Further it is his case that his vendors had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2000 from one Sri. Nelson Hensi @ Bhimarao Kamath of Dharwad. Petitioner claims that after purchase of the property he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. When the 4th respondent (wrongly mentioned 3rd respondent in the writ petition) started interfering with his possession claiming right under a gift deed dated 11.05.2001 executed by his father one Vasant Bhimarao Kamat, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.771/2009 seeking a decree for permanent injunction. It is submitted at the bar that the said suit is pending. It is also necessary to notice here that Vasant Bhimarao Kamat had instituted a suit in O.S.No.224/ 1997 against Nelson Hensi Bhimarao Kamat by arraying the vendor of the petitioner Revered Devandan T Konesagar as defendant No.12 and Aksha Devendra Konesagar as defendant No.13 seeking a declaration that he was the owner of the suit property 4 and for a mandatory injunction to demolish the construction standing on the suit property. The suit schedule property, it is urged, was part and parcel of the plaint schedule property. This suit came to be decreed on 30.02.2011. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the vendors of the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal in RFA No.4013/2012 and they have obtained an order of status-quo. It is thus clear that in respect of the suit schedule property of a declaratory suit regarding its ownership is pending consideration before this court in appeal.
3. In the mean while, the Deputy Director of Land Records-
defendant No.1 herein has held that the entry made in the name of the petitioner was not genuine, as the register of mutation disclosed that in between Si. No. 18 and 19, 18A had been inserted mentioning therein acquisition of right by the petitioner under the sale deed dated 01.09.2008, and that the same was done without any notice to the appellants before him i.e. respondents 4 and 5 herein. It is thus held by the DDLR that the entries challenged before him were effected illegally. The DDLR has also taken note of the fact that, the name of 5 the vendor of the petitioner was not found in the record as it had been already deleted earlier vide Annexure-R3 Dated 25.05.2004, confirmed in appeal by the Joint Direct of Land Records on 05.04.2005. These two orders of the Assistant Director of Land Records dated 25.05.2004 and the Joint Director of Land Records on 05.04.2005 are produced by respondent No.4, along with his statement of objections. It is thus clear that the Assistant Director of Land Records had entered the name of the petitioner without reference to and without considering the effect of the orders passed at Annexure R3 and R4. It is also relevant to notice one more fact that pertains to W.P.No.1771/2002 filed by Vasant Bhimarao Kamat father of 4th respondsent herein, challenging the order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records on 21.01.2002 directing to enter the name of Sri. Nelson Hensi @ Bhimarao Kamath, the vendor of the petitioner. The said writ petition came to be allowed, by setting aside the order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records making it clear that any entry made in the revenue record would be subject to the result of the pending suit. The pending suit referred to therein is suit 6 O,SNo.224/ 1997 which has been since decreed and against which an appeal is pending before this Court. What emerges before this Court is that the entry made in the name of Sri. Nelson Hensi @ Bhimarao Kamath vendor of the petitioner has been set aside as per the order passed in the writ petition. As is clear from the order passed vide Annexure-R3 and R4 the entries in the name of the petitioner were made subsequently without noticing the earlier orders leading to the entries of the name of the venders of the petitioner being set aside.
4. It is also clear that title to this property is itself the subject matter of dispute which is now pending in appeal before this court. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in entertaining this writ petition to undertake an exercise to find out the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order passed by the DDLR. The same will be subject to the result of the appeal pending in RFA No.4013/2012. Though petitioner is not a party to the Regular First Appeal, since his vendor is a party, the appeal will certainly have bearing on the rights of the parties. Hence, there is no interference with the 7 impugned order. Petition is accordingly, dismissed subject to the observation made above.
Sd! JUDGE