Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

96.

4. It is stated that the schedule property is now O.S. No.9290/2007 included in the jurisdiction of B.B.M.P. Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru. The plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and he filed an application for effecting durast of schedule property, to an extent of 30 guntas in Sy. No.71 of Kathriguppe village to fix the boundaries before the ADLR, Bengaluru. The ADLR stated that the hadbast is already been done for an extent of 22 guntas of land and it is assigned Re-Sy. No.130/2 on 14.03.1975. Being aggrieved by the order passed by ADLR, the plaintiff preferred Revision Petition No.20/1998-99 before the Joint Director of Land Records of Bengaluru. The JDLR was of the opinion that the dispute regarding the boundaries comes under the jurisdiction of Tahsildar who is the competent authority to rectify the mistake under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Later, the plaintiff filed an application before Tahsildar Bengaluru South Taluk for rectification O.S. No.9290/2007 of boundaries. The Tahsildar registered the same as case No.RRT(2)/DIS/34/2000-01. After conducting enquiry and spot inspection, the Tahsildar passed an order on 16.05.2003 to rectify the boundaries and to prepare the sketch of the land for an extent of 30 guntas. It is stated that the adjacent land owner i.e. defendant No.7 raised objection that the durast of schedule property made in favour of the plaintiff overlaps his land in an extent of 12½ guntas and he challenged the order passed by the Tahsildar in R.A. No.42/2003-04 before Asst. Commissioner and the Asst. Commissioner disposed the appeal on 04.03.2004 with an observation that the civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the aggrieved parties are at liberty to agitate the matter before the competent Court.

24. P.W.1 has further deposed that he filed an application for effecting durast of the schedule property to an extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy. No.71 of Kathriguppe village to fix the boundaries before the ADLR, Bengaluru and the ADLR has dismissed the petition by holding that hadbast has already been effected to an extent of 22 guntas of land and assigned Re-survey No.130/2 on 14.03.1975. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the ADLR, the plaintiff has preferred Revision Petition No.20/1998-99 before the JDLR wherein it is opined that the dispute regarding the boundaries comes under the jurisdiction of Tahsildar. Hence, the plaintiff filed application before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk for rectification of boundaries and the Tahsildar vide order dated 16.05.2003 has rectified O.S. No.9290/2007 the boundaries and has ordered to prepare the sketch of the land to an extent of 30 guntas. But to substantiate the same, though the plaintiff has not produced document in this regard the documents produced by the defendant No.7 which is marked as Ex.D.31 which is the order passed by Joint Director of Land Records dated 11.07.2000 shows the plaintiff herein had challenged the order and filed the said petition under Section 56 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act challenging the order passed by ADLR regarding the phodi durasti proceedings conducted by him in respect of Sy. No.71 by which the land was sub-phoded as new Sy. Nos.130/1 and 130/2 and JDLR vide order dated 11.07.2000 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff.

The respondent No.2 had challenged the order dated 14.03.1975 of the ADLR, before the JDLR., under Section 56 of the KLR, Act 1964 after lapse of nearly 25 years. The JDLR, in his order dated 11.07.2000 while considering all material facts in the matter has specifically pointed out that though the land was hissa phoded as Sy. No.130/2 as long back as in the year 1975 itself, the respondent No.2 has failed to examine and verify the records relating to the land he has purchased in Sy.No.71 and that his contention that new Sy. No.130/2 falls within Sy. No.71 does not merit consideration. Further it is also specifically pointed out that the boundaries specified in the sale deed of 1995 under which the respondent No.2 has purchased the land do not tally with the boundaries according to the O.S. No.9290/2007 sketch. As rightly pointed out by the JDLR., the respondent No.2 has not questioned the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in case No.42/56-57 under which the 'occupancy right' was conferred in favour of Shri. Ramaiah from whom the appellant has acquired the land under the registered 'WILL' dated 13.11.1979. The acquisition of the right over the land measuring 12½ guntas in Sy. No. 71 by the appellant is fortified by the specific documents and accordingly, 'hissa phodi' has also been effected as long back as in the year 1975 itself.

It was incumbent on the part of the respondent No.2 to have verified and examined the documents relating to the land 30 guntas, in Sy. No.71 before purchasing the same. The JDLR in his order, dated 11.07.2000 has specifically pointed out that the boundaries specified in the sale deed and the sketch of the disputed land do not tally. It is a decided principles of law that to identify the land, the boundaries specified in the sale deed shall prevail. At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that the dispute in the instant case is about the extent of land coupled O.S. No.9290/2007 with the boundary of the land. In so far as the boundary of the land is concerned, it is clear from the order dated 11.07.2000 of the JDLR the competent authority under Section 56 of the Act against the order of the ADLR under Section 140 of the Act, that the boundaries specified in the sale deed under which the respondent No.2 has purchased the land do not tally with the sketch in respect of the disputed land. Now, the dispute is with regard to possession of the land shall remain and such issue has to be decided by the Civil Court.