IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.32214 – 32215/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. SRI ABDUL AJEEMUDDIN S/O LATE MOHAMMED PEER AGE:56 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O HAROHALLI VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA TQ-571 434 MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. SRI NARASASHETTY S/O LATE NARASASHETTY AGE:65 YEARS, NO.189 NAGENDRA BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, 12TH MAIN, 50 FEET ROAD, BANGALORE-560 050 ... PETITIONERS [BY SMT.MANJULADEVI R. KAMADALLI, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION PANDAVAPURA-571 434 MANDYA DISTRICT 4. THE TAHASILDAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK-571 401 MANDYA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANENXURE-P & ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners have assailed the endorsement dated 16.12.2015 issued by the respondent No.4 vide Annexure-P, inter alia, seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue Khatha in the name of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.13 to an extent of 3 acres and 1 acre 10 guntas respectively in Harohalli village, Pandavapura Hobli and Taluk, Mandya District.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the father of the petitioner No.1 and the vendor of the petitioner No.2 were cultivating the land in Sy.No.13 situated at Harohalli village, Pandavapura Hobli and Taluk, which was a Government land along with others since time immemorial. Considering the Form No.50 filed by them for regularization of unauthorized cultivation, the said lands were granted to them and Saguvali Chit was issued by an order of Tahsildar and khatha was also issued in their names. But on 27.05.1997, the Assistant Commissioner - respondent No.3 cancelled the said grant on a complaint of one Honnagirigouda and the same was set aside by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (‘KAT’ for short) in Revision Petition No.93/1997 on 18.11.1997 with a direction to dispose of the case afresh.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, till date, the respondents have not taken any steps to enter Khatha in the names of the petitioners; several representations were made to enter their names in the R.T.C. of the land in question, but in vain. The respondent No.4 has issued an endorsement impugned stating that, no action has been taken pursuant to the directions issued by the KAT since appeal is pending against the order passed in W.P.No.45289/2013 filed by one of the grantee, Sri N.Somashekar Rao. But no such appeal has been preferred by the State Government. The order passed in W.P.No.45289/2013 having reached finality, Sri N.Somashekar Rao’s name has been restored in the revenue records in respect of the land granted. As such, the petitioners herein are entitled to similar relief on parity.
4. Learned counsel Smt.Manjuladevi R. Kamadolli, appearing for the petitioners reiterated the grounds urged in these writ petitions as aforesaid and sought for allowing the writ petitions.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents attempted to justify the impugned order and fairly submitted that no writ appeal is preferred against the order of W.P.No.45289/2013.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. The factual aspects narrated as aforesaid is not disputed by the respondents as regards the order passed by the KAT dated 18.11.1997 allowing the revision petition filed by some of the grantees challenging the order of the Assistant commissioner dated 27.05.1997. The appeal filed by the petitioner No.2 before the Deputy Commissioner - respondent No.2, challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.05.1997 has been dismissed in view of the order passed by the KAT setting aside the said order, with an observation that the said order again cannot be questioned before the Deputy Commissioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners’ names were deleted from the list of the grantees on account of the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.05.1997 setting aside the order of the Tahsildar which is the basis for issuing the endorsement impugned. In view of the order of the KAT dated 18.11.1997, the reliance placed on the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.05.1997 is wholly misconceived. In identical circumstances, Sri N.Somashekar Rao, one of the similarly placed grantee approached this Court in W.P.No.45289/2013, the same has been allowed with the direction to the respondent concerned, to forthwith restore the petitioner’s name in the revenue records in respect of the land granted and the same has reached finality.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as aforementioned, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-P deserves to be set aside. The petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed in terms of the order of the KAT passed in Revision Petition No.93/1997 dated 18.11.1997.
9. Hence, the following ORDER Impugned endorsement dated 16.12.2015 passed by the respondent No.4 at Annexure-P is quashed.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall hold an enquiry in the matter in terms of the order passed by the KAT, Bengaluru, dated 18.11.1997 in Revision Petition No.93/1997, notifying the parties concerned and pass fresh orders in accordance with law in an expedite manner, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR