IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.15680/2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN SMT. MUMTHAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O ALIKHAN R/AT SATHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK – 562 122.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB- DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 203 3. THE THASILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 122 4. SMT. THAJUNNISA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O LATE. HYDER KHAN, 5. SRI. ADIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O LATE HYDER KHAN 6. SRI. PAZIL KHAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O. LATE HYDER KHAN, 7. SRI. SADIQ KHAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O LATE HYDER KHAN, 8. SRI. SIDDIK KHAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O LATE HYDER KHAN, RESPONDENT NOs.4 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT BYLANARASAPURA VILLAGE BEHIND KHAJA AZIM SHA DARGA NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK-562 122 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3, SRI P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.4 TO 8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.03.2018 PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS No.RRT/CR/247/2016-17 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 12.03.2018 (Annexure ‘E’ to the petition) passed by respondent No.3, namely, Tahasildar, Hosakote Taluk, in proceedings No.RRT.CR.247/16-17. Admittedly, this order which is passed on 12.03.2018 is in suppression of the earlier order dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure ‘D’ to the petition) passed by Tahasildar in the very same proceedings.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
2.1 The petitioner herein is claiming title to the land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 08 guntas in Sy.No.1/1 situate at Sathiganahalli, Nandagudi hobli, Hosakote Taluk. Admittedly, the said land was originally belonging to one Khasim Khan, son of Madarsaab, in whose name the said land was standing in the revenue records. The petitioner is claiming herself to be a near relative i.e., niece of the erstwhile owner from whom she is said to have secured release deed / Hiba in respect of that land and accordingly, got the same mutated in her name by mutation order dated 03.01.1996 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) in M.R. No.3/1995- 96 passed by respondent No.3 - Tahasildar, and she continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same.
2.2 When the matter stood thus, it is stated that Mr.
Hyder Khan, the husband of respondent No.4 herein and the father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein, being aggrieved by the mutation order vide M.R. No.03/1995-96 passed by Tahasildar, filed an appeal in R.A.(Ho):504/2013-14 before the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner contending that: his father Mr.Khasim Khan was the owner of the land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 08 guntas in Sy. No.1/1 of the said Sathiganahalli village; the revenue records in respect of the said land for the period from 1968-69 to 1996-97 stood in the name of his father and after the death of his father, he had succeeded to the said property. It was alleged that respondent No.3 in the said proceedings, namely, Smt. Mumtaj (petitioner herein) in collusion with respondent No.2 therein – Revenue Inspector had got mutated the said land in her name. During the pendency of the said appeal, Mr. Hyder Khan died and his wife and children were brought on record. In the said proceedings, respondent No.3 – Smt. Mumthaj filed objections and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
2.3 The second respondent – Assistant Commissioner after considering the contentions of the parties and the material on record, has allowed the said appeal by order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure ‘C’ to the petition) in setting aside the mutation order vide M.R. No.3/95-96 passed by Tahasildar, Hosakote Taluk, whereby the land measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 08 guntas was mutated in the name of respondent No.3 therein (petitioner herein). While doing so, Assistant Commissioner has directed Tahasildar to identify the legal heirs of the original khatedar (Mr.Khasimsabi, son of Madarsab) and transfer khata of the said land in their name by taking appropriate action under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2.4 Pursuant to the said order of Assistant Commissioner, Tahasildar in proceedings No.RRT:CR:247/16-
17, considering the fact that Smt. Mumthaj / Mamthaj had filed suit in O.S. No.246/2016 against the legal heirs of Mr. Hyder Khan (respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein) before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Hosakote, and that she had also filed an appeal against the said order of Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner, ordered that status quo to be maintained with reference to khata in respect of the land measuring 02 Acres 08 guntas in Sy. No.1/1, until disposal of the said suit and appeal.
2.5 However, subsequently, Tahasildar in the very same proceedings No.RRT.CR:247/1617, has proceeded on the basis that as per the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 28.02.2017, mutation effected in the name of Smt. Mumtaj vide M.R. No.3/95-96 in respect of the land measuring 02 Acres 08 guntas in Sy. No.1/1 of the said Sathiganahalli had to be cancelled and khata with reference to the said land had to be restored in the names of the legal heirs of original khatedar – Khasimsabi. In furtherance of the same, respondent No.3 – Tahasildar has passed an order on 12.03.2018 (Annexure ‘E’ to the petition) directing to change khata in respect of the said land in the joint names of the wife and children of Mr.Hyder Khan i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein. The said order is under challenge in this petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 8. Perused the material on record including the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.4 to 8, wherein there is reference to another suit in O.S. No.445/2017 filed by the petitioner herein against respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein for the relief of declaration. The order sheet maintained in this petition discloses that coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 20.04.2018, had stayed the impugned order dated 12.03.2018 until further orders.
4. It is seen that respondent No.3 – Tahasildar having passed the earlier order dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure ‘D’ to the petition) in proceedings No.RRT/CR:247/16-17 had become functus officio with reference to the aforesaid dispute between the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein and without there being any application for review or reconsideration by any of the parties, he has proceeded to pass one more order in the very same proceedings on 12.03.2018, which is at Annexure ‘E’ to the petition.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not stand to reason and the same is required to be quashed.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 12.03.2018 (Annexure ‘E’ to the petition) passed by respondent No.3 – Tahasildar, Hosakote Taluk, Hosakote, in proceedings No.RRT.CR.247/16-17 is hereby quashed. While doing so, the earlier order dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure ‘D’ to the petition) passed by respondent No.3 – Tahasildar, wherein he has ordered maintenance of status quo with reference to khata in respect of the land measuring 02 Acres 08 guntas in Sy. No.1/1 situate in Sathiganahalli, Nandagudi hobli, Hosakote Taluk, until disposal of the suit in O.S. No.246/2016 filed by the petitioner herein against respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein, before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Hosakote, is hereby confirmed.
7. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2019 for vacating interim order does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma