IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NOS.47004 TO 47006 OF 2011(KLR-REG) BETWEEN:
1. JAVAREGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. JAYARAMU S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. S.C.RAMESH S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SANGAPURA, MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.N.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA.
4. SECRETARY AND TAHASILDAR LAND GRANT COMMITTEE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
5. K.RAMEGOWDA S/O KULLEGOWDA, SANGAPURA, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTHESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R2 TO R4 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN PASSING ORDERS ANNEXURE-E AND F & QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-E DATED 29.6.2002, MADE IN RA.NO.107 OF 1998-99 PASSED BY THE R3 AND ORDER ANNEXURE-F DATED 21.3.2011 MADE IN RA.NO.29 OF 2002 PASSED BY THE R2.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioners is that they were granted 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.24 Javanahally village, Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk. Thereafter the land was divided between the brothers. The name of the petitioners’ father was entered in the revenue records in respect of 3 acres. The records were also changed into his name. That one Kuntachari filed a suit against the father of the petitioners in O.S.No. 2 of 1989 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of 4 acres of land. The said suit was dismissed on 22-12-1994. Thereafter 1 acre 30 guntas of land though was in unauthorised cultivation of the father of the petitioners, was also granted to them. Pursuant to the said order, mutation was also changed. Questioning the same, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for a fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner which was rejected. Hence, the present petitions.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the land has been granted to them. That the 5th respondent has no right, title or interest over the same. Therefore, the revenue authorities were directed to enter the name of the petitioners.
3. On the other hand, the same is disputed by the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in these petitions. What the Assistant Commissioner has ordered is remanding the matter to the Tahsildar for a fresh consideration. It is the Tahsildar who has to pass necessary orders based on the available material. The Deputy Commissioner has approved the same. Under these circumstances, I do not find any good ground to interfere. The matter has been remanded to the Tahsildar.
Necessarily, the Tahsildar will consider the material including the decreetal or disposal of the suit or otherwise and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Hence, I find no good ground to entertain these petitions. Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-