IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.43227/2011(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN SRI A H CHENNEGOWDA S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT ADIGANAHALLI RAJANKUNTE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK N NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE 3. THE SPECIAL TASHILDHAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR HESARAGHATTA HOBLI-2 BANGALORE NORTH 5. SMT. PATALLAMMA W/O SRI SRINIVAS MAJOR R/O BASETTAHALLI VILLAGE & POST KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK 6. SRI MANJANNA S/O BEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BAYATHA GRAMA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019, NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT SRI M.RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, IN REV.PETN.NO.1/10-11 DT.27.6.11.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner herein is son of Hanumantharayappa, who is purchaser of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.80 of Addiganahalli, Hesaragatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
2. Admittedly, the aforesaid land was Thoti Inam land of Patalappa and the extent of land which was available to him was 2 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No.80. The records would indicate that said Patalappa during his lifetime under registered sale deed dated 4.7.1970 sold an extent of 2 acres of land in favour of petitioner’s father, which is registered on 9.7.1970 vide document No.1143/1970-71, wherein 2 acres out of 2 acres 38 guntas is conveyed in favour of petitioner’s father.
3. It is seen that, recitals in the sale deed is bone of contention between petitioner and 6th respondent, who is said to have purchased entire extent of 2 acres 38 guntas which was re-granted in the name of Patalappa subsequent to the said Patalappa selling 2 acres out of 2 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.80 granted in his favour. Admittedly, sale deed of the 6th respondent is dated 20.2.2009 and the same was executed by Barawardar Thoti Patalappa’s daughter Patalamma. As stated supra, confusion is tried to be created with reference to extent of land referred in the sale deed dated 4.7.1970 where in the initial stages what is referred to be conveyed is 1 acre and thereafter, in the end of the document there is reference to total 2 acres being subject matter of conveyance. In the said document, there appears to be some corrections in the xerox copy which is produced and relied upon, namely xerox copy of the original sale deed dated 4.7.1970, where in the 1st page in a place where 1 acre was referred is sought to be corrected as 2 acres, which the 6th respondent is trying to take advantage and tried to state that what was conveyed is 1 acre.
4. Hence, when serious objection was raised by 6th respondent, this Court by its order dated 12.7.2019 directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure the original of Book No.1 (Volume 2741), where the sale deed bearing document No.1143/1970-71 is copied. When the original book is secured before this Court, this Court noticed that the parties while preparing the sale deed in the preamble have referred to 1 acre is land to be conveyed, however in the end it is clearly stated that they are conveying 2 acres of land. The copy of the said document does not indicate any kind of corrections being made and the entire sale deed is reproduced by way of copying it into the said book, which copy is not tampered by anybody. Therefore, having seen the original and being satisfied with that, this Court would accept that, what is conveyed in favour of petitioner’s father under sale deed dated 4.7.1970 which is registered on 9.7.1970 is 2 acres of land.
5. Admittedly, the sale dated 4.7.1970 in favour of petitioner’s father has taken place subsequent to the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act (KVOA Act for short) coming into force on 1.2.1963. Thereafter, it is seen that the aforesaid extent of land, namely 2 acres 38 guntas is re- granted in favour of Barawardar Thoti Patalappa on 31.12.1978. Therefore, with this what is understood is that, under the registered sale deed, which was executed by Patalappa during the interregnum period when the land was vested with the Government subsequent to KVOA Act coming into force and before the re-grant was made in his favour, the petitioner’s father has secured title to an extent of 2 acres of land by virtue of judgment rendered in the matter of Basheer Ahmed & Others –vs- State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1994 KAR 159.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court would accept the title of petitioner’s father to an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.80 of Addiganahalli, Hesaragatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Since the sale deed in favour of petitioner’s father being earlier one in time, the subsequent sale of 2 acres 38 guntas by 5th respondent Patalamma, who is daughter of Barawardar Patalappa in favour of 6th respondent can be considered only to an extent of 38 guntas though the sale deed would indicate that 2 acres 38 guntas is conveyed in his favour.
7. Therefore, this Court would set aside the order of revenue entry made in favour of Patalamma to an extent of 2 acres 38 guntas in IHC.6/1991-92 inasmuch as on that day she did not have title to entire extent of 2 acres 38 guntas and what was available to her was only 38 guntas. So far as petitioner is concerned, his father having purchased 2 acres of land under registered sale deed dated 4.7.1970, he should be registered as owner of 2 acres and remaining 38 guntas can only be the land which Patalamma could have conveyed to 6th respondent. Therefore, the revenue entry in her favour should get reduced to 38 guntas and she having sold the said extent in favour of 6th respondent, the revenue entry shall be entered in his name to an extent of 38 guntas.
8. With such observations, this writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the concerned Tahsildar shall effect necessary mutation entries to the name of petitioner as well as 6th respondent in the aforesaid manner within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-