IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.21152/ 2012(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SHRI. SHANTHI NATH SWAMY JAIN BASTHI PUTTUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI. GUNAPAL JAIN S/O LATE K. LINGAPPA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT SRI. PADMALAYA RENJALA HOUSE PADNOOR VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE, D.K.
2. TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, D.K. MANGALORE.
3. THE TAHSILDAR PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT.
4. SEETHA N BHAT W/O NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT MUKRUMPADI KEMMINJE VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI. S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 09.03.2012, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.K, DIST. MANGALORE ORIGINAL COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANN-A AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED:21.10.2008, PASSED BY THE TECHNICAL ASST. TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & EX-OFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, D.K, MANGALORE TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANN-B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties it is taken up for final disposal.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.
G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. S.Vishwajith Shetty, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the records.
3. Fourth respondent who claims to have purchased the property bearing Sy.No.127/5A1C1 measuring 0.06 acres at Puttur Kasaba village, Puttur Taluk, D.K.District, on 15.02.2003 has got the sale deed registered by producing 11E sketch prepared by the Revenue authorities. Subsequent to purchase of said land, plotting of the land i.e., identifying of land by revenue authority was sought for and as per Annexure-C Hissa or demarcation of land purchased by respondent No.4 has been made.
4. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner filed an appeal before Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner in appeal No.SUR/Appeal/7/2007-08 contending that plotting had been done contrary to the boundaries described in the sale deed and there is over lapping between road and property it was further contended by respondent No.4 that proceedings conducted by revenue authorities was in violation of principles of natural justice. In effect 11E sketch produced by respondent No.4 was sought to be attacked as it is a improper sketch prepared by the revenue authorities. On the other hand fourth respondent who appeared in the appeal before second respondent contended that 11E sketch was prepared in the presence of her vendor namely Sri. Yuvaraj Jain and only when he gave consent sketch came to be drawn and there was no fault in said sketch. After considering rival contentions, second respondent by order dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure-B) dismissed the appeal by arriving at a conclusion that at the time of preparation of sketch fourth respondent and her vendor were present. It is also held quashing of the proceedings or survey sketch does not arise and necessary corrections will have to be made in the Field Measurement Book (FMB) and Akar Band as per 11E sketch prepared.
5. Being aggrieved by said order petitioner filed revision petition before Deputy Commissioner i.e., before first respondent who confirmed the order of second respondent by dismissing the revision by order dated 09.03.2012- Annexure-A by reiterating what was stated by second respondent. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.
6. I have heard the arguments of Sri.
S.Vishwajith Shetty, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 who has reiterated contentions raised before authority. It is noticed that in respect of land in question there is a suit and a counter suit filed by the parties namely, petitioner and fourth respondent have filed O.S.No.100/2006 and O.S.No.39/2008 respectively. In fact, in said suit dispute revolves around the sketch or measurement of the property which is also subject matter of 11E sketch. In fact, in the said suit Court Commissioner had also been appointed and a report has been submitted by Court Commissioner in that regard. Now the matter is before competent Civil Court for adjudicating rival claims of the parties in that regard.
7. The 11E sketch which was produced by the fourth respondent at the time of presenting the sale deed dated 15.02.2003 was the basis on which the order has been passed by second respondent by dismissing the appeal on 20.10.2008 and same was affirmed by first respondent on 09.03.2012 (Annexure-A). As the issue relating to 11E sketch is under adjudication by the competent civil Court, necessarily any order that would be passed by competent civil Court would be binding on the revenue authorities.
8. In that view of the matter, clarifying the aforestated position and observing that revenue authorities will have to necessarily carryout corrections in the sketch, in consonance of decree that may be passed, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that trial Court while adjudicating above said matter shall not be influenced in any manner, whatsoever, by virtue of 11E sketch produced by fourth respondent, it shall independently weigh the evidence tendered by parties and consider the rival claims in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE RU