IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.46546 OF 2019 & WRIT PETITION No.47945 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SRI. BEERAIAH S/O LATE SAMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT BEERAIAHANAPALYA VILLAGE MADHURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 …PETITIONER (BY SHRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DISTRICT ADMINISTRTATIVE BHAVAN 1ST FLLOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPUR-561 203 3. THE TAHASILDAR DODDABALLAPUR TALUK DODDABALLAPUR-561 203 4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 5. SMT. ERAMMA W/O LAKKANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 6. SRI. CHANNAIAH S/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 7. SRI. GANGARAJU S/O LAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT BEERAIAHANAPALYA VILLAGE MADHURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1-R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN REVISION PETITION NO.85/2014 AND REVISION PETITION NO.86/2014-15 DATED 16.01.2019 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-L.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri V.F.Kumbar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for the State.
2. Petitioner submitted an application to the Tahsildar to enter his name in the revenue records. Private respondents No.4 to 7 also submitted their application to enter their names. Tahsildar, on consideration of material on record, directed to register the names of respondent No.4 to 6 in revenue records. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner and respondent No.7 challenged the same before the Assistant Commissioner. Assistant Commissioner rejected petitioner’s claim but allowed the claim of respondent No.7 by order dated 06.03.2014. Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.01.2019. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner had filed his application at the earliest point of time. Petitioner claims his right in the property by inheritance. Without examining the records, Tahsildar has rejected petitioner’s application and the same has been upheld by Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
4. Learned AGA argued opposing the petition.
5. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
6. Tahsildar, in his order dated 06.06.2012, has recorded that as per M.R.No.5/39-40, property in question was registered in the name of one Maluraiah. As per the family tree, Maluraiah had two brothers namely, Junjappa and Channaiah and a sister called Chikkamma. Thus, Tahsildar has directed to register the names of descendants of Maluraiah.
7. During the course of argument, Shri Kumbar, learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that private respondents have got filed a Suit for partition in OS.NO.*161/2014 on the file of *Additional Civil Judge *& JMFC, Doddaballapura, and the same has been decreed. He further submitted that petitioner has already filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure.
*Corrections carried out vide court order dated 09.12.2019.
8. In view of the finding recorded by the Tahsildar, that name of Maluraiah was recorded in revenue records as early as in M.R.No.5/39-40, no exception can be taken to the order passed by Tahsildar directing to register the names of descendants of Maluraiah. In any event, petitioner has already approached the Civil Court and the parties shall be governed by the final out come in proceedings before the Civil Court.
9. In the circumstances, these petitions must fail and they are accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV