IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.27956/2009(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN SMT.RUKMINIYAMMA W/O LATE SAMAPTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT ANNENAHALLI VILLAGE DANADIGANAHALLI-HOBALI CHANNARAYA PATTNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI LOKESH BOOVANAHALLI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN-DISTRICT 2. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 3. KANTAHARAJU S/O SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 4. SRINIVAS MURTHY DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 4(a) MADUSUDAN.S, S/O SRINIVASMURTHY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4(b) VASU S/O SRINIVASMURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4(c) SATHISH S/O SRINIVASMURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 5. NAGAMMA W/O RAMACHANDRA MAJOR 6. ANURADHA D/O RAMACHANDRA MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF ANNENAHALLI VILLAGE DANADIGANAHALLI -HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR.T.L, AGA FOR R1, SRI B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R5 & R6 R4(a to c) ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN PROCEEDINGS IN R.A(R.P) NO.27/05-06 DT.15.12.2008, SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER PASSED IN RA(RP) 27/05-06 BY THE R1 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is by the 1st respondent in RA(RP).27/2005-06, which is with reference to proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
Petitioner herein is the wife of late Sampathaiah. The petitioner’s husband – Sampathaiah, respondent Nos.2 and 3, namely Krishnamurthy and Kanantharaju as well as the erstwhile 4th respondent Srinivasa Murthy and the husband of 5th respondent - Nagamma, namely late Ramachandra are sons of late Shamanna. The fact that Shamanna’s joint family consisted of himself and his aforesaid five sons is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Shamanna was an Archak in Anjaneya Temple of Annenahalli, Thimmalapura and Yeliyur village of Channarayapatna Taluk. It is further not in dispute that said Temple had Inam lands bearing Sy.No.56 of Annenahalli, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 17 guntas, an extent of 5 acres 01 gunta in Sy.No.64 of Thimmalapura village and an extent of 2 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No.88 of Yeliyur. It is seen that after the Inams Abolition Act coming in to force, applications are filed by the sons of Shamanna after his death. The said applications seeking occupancy right in respect of sy.No.56 of Annenahalli is filed by Shamanna’s first 2 sons, namely Sampathaiah and Srinivasa Murthy. So far as the lands situated at Thimmalapura and Yaliyuru viz., Sy.Nos.64 and 88 are concerned, applications are filed by Krishna Murthy, the third son of Shamanna seeking occupancy right.
3. When matter stood thus, since there were disputes between the children of Shamanna with reference to registration of revenue entries in their respective names to certain extents of land in the aforesaid survey numbers, the same led to applications being filed before the Tahsildar seeking registration of their names as cultivators based on the alleged partition, which is said to have entered in to between them. On the said applications, the Tahsildar has passed an order on 19.1.2002 in No.RRT(V).8/2001-02, which was the subject matter of an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan in NO.RA.116/2001-02, which was disposed of by order dated 26.8.2005. The said order of Assistant Commissioner is subsequently taken up in an appeal before the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Hassan in RA(RP).27/2005-06, which is disposed of by order dated 15.12.2008. The said order of Deputy Commissioner is under challenge in this writ petition by the 1st respondent in the said appeal.
4. Heard Sri.Lokesh Boovanahalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.Venkatesh R.Bhagath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6. In this proceedings original respondent No.4 - Sri.Srinivasa Murthy, since deceased, his legal representatives have come on record. However, they have not participated in this proceedings. On behalf of first respondent, learned AGA Sri.Kiran Kumar takes notice.
5. When this matter is heard for final disposal, learned counsel appearing for the parties would bring to the notice of this Court that the original suit, which was filed for declaration by and between the members of the joint family of Shamanna with reference to the rights of respective parties regarding the very same lands, which are the subject matter of this writ petition, has reached this Court in RSA.Nos.1170 and 1171 of 2010. In fact, learned Counsel appearing for the parties fairly submit that the decision in second appeals will be final with regard to the dispute between the parties. Therefore, they seek liberty to await the decision in RSA.Nos.1170 and 1171 of 2010 and thereafter, based on the judgment that would be passed in the second appeals they would take necessary steps with regard to their rights regarding the properties, which are in dispute in this proceedings.
6. Placing on record the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to them to pursue their right in the pending RSA.Nos.1170 and 1171 of 2010, where they at liberty to seek framing of appropriate question of law to decide their respective rights. Further, it is made clear that all the revenue entries, which are made pursuant to the proceedings before the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, are subject to the result of RSA.Nos.1170 and 1171 of 2010.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-