IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.34203 OF 2009 (KLR-RR/SUR) Between:
Shri.Doreyappa.M.N, S/o.M.Navilappa, Aged about 46 years, R/a Honnavile Village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Tq. ... Petitioner (By Sri.M.V.Vedamurthy, Advocate) And:
1. The Deputy Commissioner, of Shimoga District at Shimoga.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Sub-Division, Shimoga.
3. The Tahsildar, Shimoga Taluk, Shimoga.
4. Shri Andanappa, S/o Kuskur Sanna Manjappa, Major, R/at Nidige Village, Shimoga Taluk.
5. Shri Chikkanna, S/o Doddappa, Major, R/o Manchenahalli, Shimoga Tq.
6. Shri Rangappa, S/o Doddappa, Major, R/o Siriyur Village, Bhadravathi Tq.
Since dead represented by his LRs, 6(A). Smt.Jayakka, Aged about 60 years, R/at Siriyuru Thanda Village, Kasaba II Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District-577 302.
6(B). Sri.Kumar, Aged about 30 years, R/at Siriyuru Thanda Village, Kasaba II Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District-577 302.
6(C). Sri.Shridhara, Aged about 28 years, R/at Siriyuru Thanda Village, Kasaba II Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District-577 302.
6(D). Sri.Yogeesha, Aged about 26 years, R/at Siriyuru Thanda Village, Kasaba II Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District-577 302.
(cause title amended as per order dated 03-09-2018.) 7. Shri Nagappa, S/o Doddappa, Major, R/o Nidige Village, Shimoga Tq.
8. Smt.Lalithamma, W/o Late Thoppanna, Major, R/o Nidige Village, Shimoga Tq. ... Respondents (By Sri.T.S.Mahantesh, AGA for R1 to R3, Sri.K.T.Mohan, Advocate for R4, R5, R7 & R8 are served but unrepresented v/o dated 3.09.2018, notice to R-6 (A to D) is held sufficient) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order of the R1, dt.5.8.04, produced as Ann-Q to the petition, which is in R.Misc.12/03-04 and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER The petitioner herein is son of one Neelappa, though he is referred to as Doreyappa in the causetitle to the writ petition. According to petitioner, his father purchased an extent of 16 guntas of land in Survey No.118 of Nidige village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk under registered sale deed dated 20.02.1985 which was executed by Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 who are sons of Doddappa along with the husband of Respondent No.8-Lalithamma whose name is Thoppanna who is another brother of Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7. It is based on the said sale deed, the petitioner herein and his father are claiming title and mutation entries to 16 guntas of land in Survey No.118 referred to supra.
2. According to petitioner, immediately after his father purchased the said land in the year 1985, mutation was effected with reference to aforesaid 16 guntas in his favour and the same was continued. It is further stated that the said entry was subject matter of challenge by Respondent No.4-Andanappa claiming himself to be purchaser of 16 guntas of aforesaid land in Survey No.118 under registered sale deed dated 03.10.1974. A copy of the said sale deed in favour of Andanappa is produced by the counsel for fourth respondent along with a memo in this proceedings. It is stated that the revenue entry which was made in the name of petitioner’s father is removed pursuant to an order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.17107/1993 which was filed by Respondent No.4 wherein the co-ordinate Bench, while disposing of the said writ petition, by its order dated 02.06.1999, directed the Tahsildar of Shimoga-Respondent No.3 herein to conduct survey of the land bearing Survey No.118 and thereafter, to consider the prayer of Respondent No.4-Andanappa to mutate an extent of 16 guntas purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 03.10.1974 from the very same persons who sold 16 guntas in the same survey number to petitioner’s father.
3. It is in this background the order dated 30.09.2000 at Annexure-J has been passed by the Tahsildar of Shimoga in the proceedings in No.RRD/CR/11/1999-2000, wherein an extent of 16 guntas in Survey No.118 is registered in the name of Andanappa in the revenue records. The revenue entry pursuant to that order is in No.MR/28/2000-2001. It is this revenue entry which was under challenge before the Assistant Commissioner of Shimoga-Respondent No.2 herein in proceedings PDA/22/2002-2003 dated 21.03.2003 where the Assistant Commissioner after giving careful consideration to the objection raised by Doreyappa- petitioner herein who is son of original purchaser Neelappa proceeded to reject the said appeal and confirmed the revenue entry of 16 guntas in Survey No.118 in favour of Anandanappa who was Respondent No.2 in the proceedings before Assistant Commissioner, which order is at Annexure-P.
4. The said order was subject matter of revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Shimoga-Respondent No.1 in Revision Miscellaneous No.12/2003-04, where the Respondent No.4 herein was Respondent No.3 and the Deputy Commissioner, after considering the objections of both petitioner as well as Respondent No.4 herein, proceeded to dismiss the revision petition which is filed by petitioner herein by order dated 5th August 2004, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition belatedly in the year 2009. Though this writ petition is filed in the year 2009, no interim orders were passed interfering with the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
5. When this matter is taken up for final disposal in the presence of learned counsel Sri.M.V.Vedamurthy for the petitioner and Sri.K.T.Mohan for the contesting Respondent No.4, this Court, at the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, secured original records from the Tahsildar of Shimoga who is present before the Court and learned Addl. Government Advocate who represents the State, has produced the original records so far as entries in No.MR/28/2000-2001.
6. On going through the said records along with copy of the sale deed dated 03.10.1974 executed in favour of Respondent No.4 produced along with a memo of this date, it clearly indicates that even prior to the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 and husband of Respondent No.8 executed sale deed pertaining to 16 guntas in favour of petitioner’s father on 20,02.1985, a sale deed was already executed in favour of Respondent No.4 herein on 03.10.1974 wherein an extent of 39 guntas is sold in favour of Respondent No.4 both in respect of Survey Nos.117 and 118 of Nidige village. However, in the said sale deed, there is no reference to what is the extent of land conveyed to the Respondent No.4 in Survey Nos.117 and 118. Taking advantage of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner herein tried to assert that what was conveyed to the Respondent No.4 under sale deed dated 03.10.1974 is not 16 guntas which was subject matter of sale deed in favour of his father on 20.02.1985. Though such submission is made by him, the sale deed which is executed in his favour does not clarify the same.
7. It is also stated that Survey No.118 is subsequently phoded into Survey No.118/2. Under what basis this phoding is done is not available on record. In any event, claim of Respondent No.4 in respect of 16 guntas of land in Survey No.118 pursuant to sale deed dated 03.10.1974 under which he is claiming his ownership is against the sale deed dated 20.02.1985 executed in favour of petitioner’s father. Therefore, in the fact situation, the orders passed by Tahsildar vide Annexure-P pursuant to direction issued by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.17103/1993 vide Annexure-P which is implemented in No.MR/28/2000-2001 registering 16 guntas in favour of Respondent No.4 which was subject matter of appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.PDA/22/2002-03 disposed of on 21.03.2003 at Annexure-P, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 05.08.2004 in Case No.R.Misc.12/2003-04 produced at Annexure-Q appears to be just and proper. The said order does not call for interference in this proceeding.
8. Even otherwise, it is seen that though the petitioner herein was party to the proceedings before Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner vide orders at Annexures-P and Q having suffered an adverse order, accepted the same and did not choose to challenge the said order nearly for four years and thereafter, this writ petition is filed belatedly. Hence, no justifiable grounds are made out to interfere with the same.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv*