IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA W.P.NO.36560/2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
G. MUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1. SMT. SAMPANGAMMA @ SAMPAMMA W/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SHRIDHAR BABU S/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KUPPASHETTY BHAVI MALUR TOWN MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI. M.N. GONDAPPA LATE G. NANJUNDAPPA GOLD RANGAPPA STREET MALURT TOWN, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.H. SOMASHEKARA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101.
3. THE TAHASILDAR MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
4. SRI. CHENNARAYAPPA REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS 4(A). SMT. BHARATHI S/O. LATE CHINNARAYAPPA AGED MAJOR 4(B). SRI. NAGESH S/O. LATE CHINNARAYAPPA AGED MAJOR 4(C). SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE CHINNARAYAPPA AGED MAJOR 4(D). SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O. LATE CHINNARAYAPPA AGED MAJOR RESPONDENTS 4(A) TO 4(D) ARE RESIDING AT HEDAGINABELE GRAMA KASBA HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SMT. MANJULA R. KAMADOLLI, ADV. FOR R4(A TO D)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED: 19.07.2017 MADE IN REVISION NO.25/2014-15 PASSED BY THE R1 REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER THROUGH GPA HOLDER AND THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2015 IN APPEAL NO.35/2014-15 PASSED BY THE R2 ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE LRS OF R4 VIDE ANNEXURES A AND B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners herein are claiming to be owners of land bearing Survey No.114 measuring to an extent of 2 acres in Hedaginabelehalli, Kasba Hobli, Malur Taluk. According to them, the said land was initially granted in favour of one A.K. Nagappa, under grant dated 10.09.1962 followed by Saguvali Chit dated 18.08.1963(12.08.1963), which is at Annexure-“C” to these proceedings. However, it is contended that the land which was granted was bearing Survey No.62, but the land which was in his possession was bearing Survey No.52. In the meanwhile, there appears to be sale of aforesaid land from A.K. Nagappa in favour of M.G. Anjinappa under registered sale deed dated 21.10.1989 and thereafter in the family of M.G. Anjinappa there was partition and in the said partition, the land in question came to the share of 1st petitioner’s husband and 2nd petitioner’s father. When the matter stood thus, it is stated that an application was given to the Tahsildar to measure the land and identify whether the survey number in which the petitioners are continuing is survey No.52 or 62 of the aforesaid village.
2. It is in this behalf a survey was conducted and it was identified that 2 acres of land which was originally granted in favour of A.K. Nagappa was in Survey No.52 though it was shown as Survey No.62 and the grant was subject to possession and cultivation. Therefore, the mistake which has crept in the document is a mistake with reference to the number and not with reference to the identification of the land. However, the said order when it was challenged before the ADLR by the respondents herein, the same was set aside, which in turn was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal filed by the husband of the 1st petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioners have come up in these proceedings impugning the order dated 19.07.2017 passed in Revision Petition No.25/2014- 2015 by the first respondent confirming the order dated 10.7.2015 passed in Appeal No.35/2014-2015 by the second respondent-Deputy Director of Land Records, Kolar District.
3. By accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Smt. Manjula R. Kamadolli, for contesting respondent No.6, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the authorities in observing that fresh enquiry is required to be conducted after giving notice to all the concerned parties appears to be correct.
4. In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty to all the parties i.e. petitioners and respondent No.4(A-D) to appear before the third respondent in a fresh enquiry to be initiated by him and place records before him to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of their grievance with reference to the land which is in possession of the petitioner and to seek clarification in respect of the survey number of the land, which is in possession of the petitioners, as to whether it is Survey No.52 or 62 of Hedaginabelehalli, Kasba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District(present survey No.114). The third respondent is directed to hear and decide the matter keeping in mind the earlier proceedings, which are conducted by the authorities.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.