IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.50555 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI G ABIRUBEN, S/O LATE A GRAHADURAI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO. 82-A, KAMARAJA ROAD, SIVAKASI, TAMILNADU – 626123.
2. SRI G ATHIPATHY, S/O LATE A GRAHADURAI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO. 109-A, VELAYUTHAM ROAD, SIVAKASI - 626123, TAMILNADU. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. TALUK PANCHAYAT, BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANEKAL TALUK PANCHAYAT, ANEKAL, BANGALORE – 562106.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BIDAREGUPPE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BIDARAGUPPE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 562106, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
4. SRI B M VENKATESH, S/O M MUNISHAMI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BIDARAGUPPE VILLAGE AND POST, AMBEDKAR STREET, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562106.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI V.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-1 DATED 03.07.2019 IN APPEAL VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ALSO THE ORDER OF ASST. COMMISSIONER DATED 06.01.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Vinod Prasad, learned Advocate for petitioners and Sri Y D Harsha, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri V Shiva Kumar, leaned Advocate for respondent No.4.
2. Facts borne out on record are as follows:- one Shenbhaga Kutty was owner of agricultural lands bearing Sy. Nos.69 and 70 of Hindlabele village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk measuring 2.37 acres and 2.16 acres respectively. On 26.09.2002 he executed a will bequeathing the property in favour of both the petitioners herein and one Sri V A Kodiswaran. Shri V A Kodiswaran transferred his right in favour of the petitioners. In substance, entire properties devolved upon the petitioners. Petitioners got their names entered in the revenue records as per MR No.29/2010-11. Thereafter they got the land converted for non – agricultural purpose.
3. On 24.03.2016 petitioners got their names entered in the Village Panchayath Records of Bidaraguppe Grama Panchayath. Respondent No.4 challenged the said entry of petitioners’ name in appeal No.21/2016-17 before Anekal taluk panchayath. By the impugned order the said appeal has been allowed. Hence this petition.
4. Sri Vinod Prasad, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners urged following contentions in support of his petition:
that appellate authority in substance has decided the title over the property;
that in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order the appellate authority has referred to proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in proceedings No.402/2015-16 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South and commented upon the rights of the parties;
that the petitioners had no notice of proceedings in RA No.402/15-16;
that there is total non application of mind;
that the petitioners were not heard by the Assistant Commissioner; and that petitioners have the benefit of order of injunction given by the jurisdictional Civil court in their favour with regard to the possession of the property.
5. Learned AGA and learned Advocates for respondents argued opposing the petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned Advocates.
7. Petitioners claim their title through late Shenbhaga Kutty. Based on the Will, they got their names entered in the revenue records. Shenbhaga Kutty’s children challenged the said revenue entries in RA No.402/2015-16 and the said appeal has been allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. Petitioners’ names have been entered in the panchayath records after registration of petitioners’ names in the revenue records and conversion of lands for non agricultural purposes.
8. As recorded above, registration of petitioners’ names has been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the basis on which petitioners’ names were entered into by the village panchayath stood altered. The 4th respondent claims title under children of late Shenbhaga Kutty. They have filed the appeal leading to impugned order.
9. The contention of Sri Vinod Prasad that the impugned order is based on the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner setting aside the mutation entries in which he was not heard, is not tenable. However, he is right in contending that the revenue authorities transferring the names in revenue records shall not decide the title. But it is relevant to note that petitioners’ names were entered in the panchayath records based on revenue entries in their name. The position stood altered pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, setting aside entries in the name of petitioners. It is stated that petitioners did file the objections and they were heard before the impugned order was passed by Taluk Panchayath. Hence the contention that petitioners were not heard by the Assistant Commissioner in RA No.402/2015-16 is irrelevant.
10. In view of above, this petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl