IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.12048/2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN PINNA SETTY, S/O DASASHETY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT JYOTHIGOWDANAPURA CHANDAKAVAVI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571313. ... PETITIONER (By Sri GIRISH B.BALADARE, ADV.) AND 1. GOVINDASHETTY S/O LATE DASASHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PADUVARAHALLY, 4TH MAIN ROAD VINAYAKA NAGAR, INFRONT OF KARUNA NURSHING HOME MYSORE.
2. NARAYANA SHETTY S/O LATE DASASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. SUBBASHETTY S/O LATE DASASHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4. SUNDRAMMA W/O PINNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O JYOTHIGOWDANAPURA, CHANDAKAVADI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-571313 5. THE TAHASILDAR CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB DIVISION, KOLLEGALA CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571313 7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R5-R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEX-E THAT THE ORDER DT.1.8.2016 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, IN NO.R.A.NO.29/2011-12, CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE TAHSILDAR AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 5 to 7.
2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District in R.A.No.29/2011-12 vide Annexure-E.
3. Facts involved in the case disclose that petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 herein are sons of one Dasashetty and 4th respondent – Sundramma is the wife of petitioner. Dispute pertains to 27 guntas of land out of 1 acre 13 guntas comprised in Sy.No.74/1 situated at Jyothigowdanapura Village, Chandakavadi Hobli, Chamarajanagar Taluk. Petitioner herein made an application before the Tahsildar, Chamarajanagar stating that the said land had come to his share in a partition that had taken place in the presence of Panchas on 24.06.1997. He sought for recording his name in the revenue records based on the said partition and also on the basis of an unregistered sale deed. This was opposed by the brothers of petitioner. The Tahsildar accepted the contention of petitioner and recorded his name in respect of 27 guntas of land based on the unregistered partition deed and also for 11½ guntas as based on unregistered sale deed out of the very same land. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar, respondents – brothers of petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
4. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 28.10.2011 holding that both parties have to approach the Civil Court to resolve their dispute. Appeal was accordingly dismissed. This was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by filing a revision petition by Govindashetty – respondent No.1. The Deputy Commissioner found that the Tahsildar was not right and justified in acting on the basis of unregistered partition deed and the sale deed, authenticity of which were denied by other members of the joint family. However, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to enter the names of all sharers jointly in the revenue records. Aggrieved by this order, present writ petition is filed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
6. Question whether there was a partition in the family on 24.06.1997 is a matter that has to be established by the petitioner before the Civil Court, particularly, because the said partition has been disputed by other members of the family and the same is not evidenced by a registered document. Similarly, claim of petitioner regarding his title over 11½ guntas of land by virtue of unregistered sale deed dated 30.08.1986 cannot be a matter of adjudication by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the Deputy commissioner was right and justified in passing the impugned order directing the Tahsildar to enter the names of all sharers jointly in the RTC. Though the Deputy Commissioner has not made it clear that parties have to work out their remedy before the Civil Court the same result follows inasmuch as it is for the parties to approach the Civil Court and seek resolution of their dispute regarding the facturm of partition and the title to the property.
7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed making it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of petitioner approaching the Civil Court.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE VP