IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
WRIT APPEAL NO.3413 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND WRIT APPEAL NOS.4996 TO 4999 OF 2016 Between:
1. Smt. Nirmalamma W/o Late N.Narayanappa Aged about 52 years 2. Sri.N.Ravi S/o Late N.Narayanappa Aged about 29 years 3. Smt.N.Savitha D/o Late N.Narayanappa Aged about 26 years 4. Miss N.Shobha D/o Late N.Narayanappa Aged about 23 years 5. Miss Swetha D/o Late N.Narayanappa Aged about 21 years All the appellants are residents of Varadanahalli, Kasaba Hobli Doddaballapur Taluk Bangalore Rural District – 561 203 (By Sri.Vivek Reddy, Senior Counsel along with Sri.Mudit Kundlia, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Revenue Department Multi-storeyed Building Bengaluru – 560 001 ... Appellants 2. The Tahsildar Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk Sharavathi Hotel Building Yelahanka New Town Bengaluru – 560 064 3. The Revenue Inspector Office of the Tahsildar Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk Sharavathi Hotel Building Yelahanka New Town Bengaluru – 560 064 4. N. Veeranna S/o Late Narayanappa Aged: 84 years Residing at No.130 4th Cross, Sundaranagara Gokula, Bengaluru – 54 ... Respondents (Sri.V.Sreenidhi, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3) These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.20055-20059/2015 dated 14.9.2015.
These appeals coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The appeals are barred by limitation. The delay is of 321 days.
2. By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal.
3. These are appeals against the judgment and order dated September 14, 2015, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in a batch of writ petitions. The writ petitioners and the private respondent No.4 in the writ petitions are rival claimants in relation to the property-in-dispute. There has been a recording in the name of the respondent No.4 in the revenue settlement record of rights, pursuant to the order passed by the Revenue Officer. The writ petitioners are aggrieved as they feel that the issue of title is involved.
4. The revenue settlement record of rights is not a document of title. Moreover, the respondent No.4 has filed a suit being Original Suit No.266 of 2011, against these writ petitioners in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Second Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, which has, since, been decreed. It is true that a regular first appeal being R.F.A. No.1362 of 2013, is pending challenging the judgment and decree dated July 5, 2013, passed in Original Suit No.266 of 2011.
5. At this stage, the Hon’ble Single Judge decided to direct the authorities to maintain status quo, subject to the result of the regular first appeal.
6. We hold that the revenue settlement record of rights is not a document of title. The Civil Court shall decide the title and the revenue settlement record of rights must reflect the decision of the Civil Court.
7. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals is dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are, also, dismissed.
8. In view of dismissal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.
9. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB