Karnataka High Court
Sri Somachandra Reddy Alias Chandra ... vs The Deputy Director Of Land Records on 22 July, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
W.P.No.23046/2021 (KLR - RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SOMACHANDRA REDDY
ALIAS CHANDRA REDDY,
S/O MUNIVENKATAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT MAGAONDI VILLAGE
AND POST, KASABA HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.H.RAMACHANDRA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR - 563 121.
2. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT OF
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE - KOLAR - 563 121.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
BENGALURU DIVISION,
K R CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
2
4. SRI CHANDRAIAH,
S/O CHANAPPA,
AGED 57 YEARS,
R/AT MAGAONDI VILLAGE
AND POST, KASABA HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.
5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
LAND RECORDS,
BANGARPET TALUK,
BANGARPET - 563 114.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5;
SRI.PAVAN G.N., ADV., FOR
SRI.G.NAGARAJALU NAIDU, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN APPEAL
NO.103/2-19-20 DATED 07.07.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE - H;
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 IN
REVISION NO.32/21-22 DATED 19.11.2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE - K AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The land bearing Sy.No.162 measuring 3 acres 2
guntas inclusive of 4 guntas of kharab was initially 3 owned by three bothers. In a partition amongst three brothers Raghupati was granted 1 acre, Radhakrishna was granted 38 guntas and 2 guntas of kharab, totally measuring 1 acre and the fourth respondent was granted 1 acre. Radhakrishna and Raghunath conveyed their share to the petitioner under a sale deed dated 26.09.2003.
2. On the basis of the said sale deed, Durasti of the property in question was requested and on 28.06.2016 the property was measured and a podi and Durasti was conducted. Sy.No.162 was bifurcated as 162/1 and 162/2.
3. Sy.No.162/1 was assigned to the land that the petitioner had purchased and as per the podi it was found that he was in possession of 1 acre 38 guntas.
4
4. The land retained by the fourth respondent and which was not alienated was assigned Sy.No. 162/2, measuring 1 acre excluding 1 ½ guntas of kharab land.
5. This Durasti, of the year 2016 conducted pursuant to the sale deed was accepted by the petitioner. However, subsequently, the petitioner appears to have made a claim before the Assistant Director, Land Records (for short ADLR) and ADLR without notice to anybody the ADLR proceeded to issue a communication dated 13.02.2020 canceling the Hissa podi conducted in the year 2016.
6. The Deputy Director, Land Records (for short DDLR) taking cognizance of this communication initiated a suo-moto appeal to consider validity of the podi conducted in the year 2016.
5
7. On consideration of the entire matter, DDLR found that there was no discrepancy in the podi and Durasti conducted in the year 2016 and he also recorded finding that during the course of his spot inspection it was found that the petitioner and the fourth respondent were in possession of their respective properties as per the Durasti of the year 2016. He accordingly affirmed the Durasti conducted in the year 2016 and dismissed the appeal.
8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Joint Director, Land Records (for short JDLR) and JDLR on re-appreciation of entire matter concurred with the view taken by the DDLR and dismissed the revision. Thus, the Durasti conducted in the year 2016 has been found to be proper and has been confirmed by both the DDLR and JDLR.
6
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner however contends that the Durasti conducted in the year 2016 was improper and the fourth respondent had actually encroached upon a portion of his property.
10. It is to be stated that the Durasti was conducted in the year 2016 and was not challenged by the petitioner till the year 2020. The DDLR had initiated the suo-moto proceedings under Section 49 and on appreciation of the entire matter he has recorded a clear finding that the parties were in possession as per the Durasti of the year 2016 and the Durasti was proper and in accordance with established norms. The said order has been confirmed by the JDLR. Thus, the two fact finding authorities have concurrently found that the Durasti conducted on Sy.No.162 in the year 2016 and assigning Sy.Nos. 162/1 and 162/2 were correct and could not be found fault with.
7
In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the authorities, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE BVK