IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.51741 OF 2015 [KLR-RR/SUR] BETWEEN:
BASAPPA @ BUDDIVANTARA BASAPPA, 62 YEARS, S/O. SANNANANJAPPA MANGOTE VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N. BHAT, ADV ) AND:
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201 4 TAHASILDAR BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 301 5 YUVARAJA S/O. SHIVAPPA MANGOTE VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. P.N. HARISH, ADV. FOR R5] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 7.10.2015 VIDE ANN-D AND ALSO ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DATED 3.4.2012 VIDE ANN-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner herein is challenging the order dated 3.4.2012 passed in proceedings bearing No.PDA- 216/09-10 vide Annexure ‘C’ and order dated 7.10.2015 in R.Misc.72/2012-13 vide Annexure ‘D’ on the premise that he is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.61/1 measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.61/2 measuring 4 acres situate at Mangoti village Holehonnur Hobli, Bhadravathi taluk and has secured an order dated 9.7.2003 in proceedings No.414/03-04 to get the aforesaid lands mutated in his favour, which is set aside and the names of others are entered in the revenue records.
2. However, if the orders are looked into, it clearly discloses that the petitioner herein who is Basappa @ Buddivantara Basappa, S/o late Sannananjappa of Mangoti village, Bhadravathi Taluk was granted with aforesaid two survey numbers as the person having lost his land due to submersion of his land in Bhadra project. It is also seen that he has sold the entire extent of 5 acres in favour of Abdul Khuddus under a registered document No.868/75-76 dated 24.6.1975. With this, it is clear that he has lost his title to the said property. However, in spite of conveying title to the said property in favour of third party he has managed to get khata of the said land registered in his name through a report submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 9.7.2003 in proceedings No.414/03-04.
3. When the same was subject matter of challenge before the Assistant Commissioner in PDA 216/09-10, the said officer on going through the material available on record, has observed that there is no semblance of right for the petitioner to seek registering of the aforesaid lands in his name in the revenue records and accordingly, he has set aside the mutation entries made in his name in MR 29/99-2000, MR.6/2000-01 and MR 4/2003-04 and it is also observed by him that on the basis of the decree passed in O.S.No.180/2009, khata of Sy.Nos.61/1, 61/2 should be entered by the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The said order of Assistant Commissioner dated 3.4.2012 was subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga in R.Misc.72/2012-13, where the revision filed by the petitioner herein under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act also came to be dismissed by order dated 7.10.2015.
4. When these two orders are seen, it is clear that the petitioner who was erstwhile owner of aforesaid land having sold the same in favour of Abdul Khuddus, has been unrighteously litigating before all the authorities to secure revenue entries without there being supporting title to the property, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, while confirming the order of Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner in the aforesaid two proceedings, this Court while dismissing the present writ petition would impose cost of Rs.5 lakhs on the petitioner Basappa @ Buddivantara Basappa for unrighteously staking claim on the land which he has already sold under the registered sale deed. This conduct of petitioner is nothing but a deliberate act to waste the time of quasi judicial authority as well as the valuable time of this Court, by litigating for non-existing right to the property in question. Therefore, this act of greed cannot be left unpunished. Hence, the said cost is imposed.
5. It is made clear that the Registry shall ensure that the said cost is recovered from him by way of arrears of recovery of revenue, failing which, he would be sent to civil prison, till such time he pays the cost.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp