IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.2060 OF 2019 (KLR – RES) BETWEEN:
Mr.A.Bhaskara Manja, S/o late Ramachandra Manja, Aged about 55 years, Residing at No.395, 6th Main Road, ISRO Layout, Bengaluru – 560 078. …Petitioner (By Sri. Kashinath J.D., Advocate) AND:
The Tahsildar, Baindur Taluk, Udupi District – 576 101. …Respondent (By Sri.Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned endorsement bearing No.RRT.CR/129/18-19 dated 15.12.2018 issued by the respondent at Annexure – A as illegal and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The grievance of the petitioner is that he had an undivided share in several properties which are suit schedule properties in O.S.No.12/2011 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kundapura. According to petitioner, he was 1st plaintiff in the aforesaid suit which was filed against other members of his family. The said suit filed by him for partition on 25.04.2011 was decreed by Judgment dated 02.11.2016 in recognizing his right to suit schedule properties to an extent of five out of seven shares for him and another four members of his family who together filed the suit along with him in O.S.No.12/2011.
2. It is stated that when he brought it to the notice of sole respondent-Tahsildar, Baindur taluk to reflect the same in Column No.11 of RTC to the effect that the petitioner herein and other four persons who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.12/2011 have acquired five out of seven shares in the properties which are suit schedule properties in O.S.No.12/2011. The same was rejected by the respondent by an endorsement dated 15.12.2018 issued in RRT.CR.129/2018-19 on the ground that the order secured by the petitioner in original suit for partition is only a preliminary decree. Therefore, based on that same cannot be entertained to change katha of the aforesaid land in his name and making such observation, it is also stated that several persons got the pahani of said land transferred to their name.
9. In the fact situation, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the endorsement dated 15.12.2018 issued by Tahsildar, Baindur taluk is required to be quashed in as much as when there is an order already passed in O.S.No.12/2011 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kundapura in accepting the title of Plaintiffs 1 to 5 in the said suit in which the 1st plaintiff is petitioner before the Court in claiming that they have five shares out of seven shares in the suit schedule property. The same should be mentioned in Column No.11 to the effect that the names shown in RTC in the column of the cultivator and possessor is subject to the decree passed in O.S.No.12/2011 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Baindur. The aforesaid entry shall be made in Column No.11 of RTC in respect of the suit schedule properties within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With such observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv*