IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.25179/2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAMASWAMY S/O LATE DODAPPA @ DODDANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
2 . SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE DODDAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
3 . SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE DODDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
4 . SRI. JAGADISH S/O LATE DODDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT KEELUKOPPA VILLAGE, S.G. KOTE POST KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 162.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J.R. MOHAN, ADV., ON BEHALF OF SRI. SURESHA M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR – 563 101.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION NEAR COURT CIRCLE, KOLAR -563 101.
3 . THE TAHSILDAR BANGARPET TALUK BANGARPET – 563 114 KOLAR DISTRICT.
4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BENGALURU DIISION, K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 001.
5 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 101.
6 . THE ASS. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR – 563 101.
7 . THE TALUKA SURVEYOR BANGARPET TALUK BANGARPET – 563 114 KOLAR DISTRICT.
8 . SRI. K.P. ASHWATH S/O PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
9 . SRI. VENKATASWAMY S/O GOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
10 . SRI. RAMESH S/O GOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 10 ARE R/O KASARANAHALLI MAJARA DINNE KOTHANURU VILLAGE ROBERTSONPET HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 113.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-7; NO NOTICE TO R-8 TO R-10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:06.09.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.R.A./114/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE- J.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. J.R. Mohan, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7. No notice is issued to respondent Nos.8 to 10, since petition is being rejected at the threshold for the reasons indicated herein below.
2. Order dated 06.09.2017– Annexure-J is under challenge in this writ petition came to be passed by first respondent in R.A.No.114/2015-16. Perusal of same would disclose that respondent Nos.8 to 10 herein being aggrieved by phodi durasti conducted in respect of land bearing Sy.No.88 of Kesaranahalli village, Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District had preferred above said appeal. Though in the appeal i.e., R.A.No.114/2015-16 there is a reference to order dated 23.12.2015, learned Advocate appearing for parties would submit that what was challenged before Deputy Commissioner was order dated 05.01.2016- Annexure-G which relates to implementation of phodi durasti relating to Sy.No.88 and under said order i.e., order dated 05.01.2016 Annexure-G, Assistant Commissioner in order to give effect to the phodi durasti had opined for mutating the revenue records as per the extent of land in occupation of the different persons including the petitioners herein and had ordered for making entries in revenue records accordingly. As such, Deputy Commissioner under impugned order dated 06.09.2017- Annexure-J held that revenue authorities do not have power to mutate the revenue records in the names of applicants based on their possession but it has to be mutated on the basis of the recitals found in registered document. In fact, Deputy Commissioner under the impugned order after having noticed that petitioners herein who were respondent Nos.3 to 6 in said proceedings had purchased the land measuring 5 Acres 21 Guntas in Sy.No.88/1 and katha had also been effected in their names in M.R.No.03/2000-01 and said mutation was in accordance with law, had allowed the appeal, since Assistant Commissioner by order dated 05.01.2016- Annexure-G had sought to given effect to the phodi durasti proceedings which reflected different parties including petitioner and respondents being in possession of Sy.No.88 to different extent of areas namely, they were said to be in possession either in excess or less than the land as reflected in their title deeds. It is because of this precise reason, Deputy Commissioner has rightly observed that revenue authorities do not have power to mutate the revenue records based on their possession but it has to be mutated on the basis of title itself i.e., as reflected in registered documents. Said finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner does not call for interference.
3. In fact, in the instant proceedings the phodi durasti proceedings conducted have not been called in question by petitioner. Even otherwise, as could be seen from the records, the effecting of phodi durasti work relating to Sy.No.88 into Sy.No.88/1 and 88/2 by the Deputy Director, Department of Survey, Kolar Sub- Division has been set aside by the Joint Director of Land Records by order dated 18.11.2003 and has directed the fourth respondent therein to redo the survey work. As to whether this order has been given effect to or same having reached finality is not forthcoming from the material placed on record and as such no opinion is expressed in that regard. In the light of Deputy Commissioner clearly observing that the petitioner is entitled for revenue records being mutated to their names to the extent of 5 Acres 21 guntas as per the recitals in their sale deed which order enure to the benefit of petitioner, question of entertaining this writ petition would definitely be at the peril of the petitioner. Hence, this Court finds it is not a fit case for entertaining the writ petition. As such, writ petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE RU