IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.51628/2017(KLR-RES) BETWEEN SRI RANGASWAMAIAH SON OF LATE T.DODDARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT GULEHARAVI VILLAGE GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 125 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI FAYAZ SAB B G, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE TAHASILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU – 572 101 3. SRI. DASAPPA S/O LATE PUTTARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT GULEHARAVI VILLAGE GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 125 4. SRI. PUTTARANGAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS RESIDING AT GULEHARAVI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 125 5. SRI. THIMMAIAH S/O PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT GULEHARAVI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 125 6. SRI. VENKATARANGAIAH S/O LATE PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT GULEHARAVI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 125 7. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT GULEHARAVI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 125 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ACTION IN INITIATING THE DISPUTE No.R.R.T(DS)CR.14/2009-10 DATED 26.07.2017 BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ON 26.07.2017 CALLING UPON THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ON 22.08.2017 PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-K, AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner herein is impugning the notice dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure ‘K’ to the petition) issued by the second respondent – Tahasildar, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru, to him in proceedings bearing No.RRT(DS)CR.14/2009-10. By the said notice, the second respondent herein had called upon the petitioner herein to participate in the enquiry, which was scheduled to be held on 22.08.2017 at 3:00 p.m. Admittedly, the aforesaid proceedings were initiated at the instance of respondent Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 herein.
3. According to the petitioner, Sri Thimmaiah was the absolute owner of the petition schedule property i.e., land measuring to an extent of 20 guntas out of 02 Acres 06 guntas in Sy. No.40 situate at Guleharavi village, Gulur hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District. Thimmaiah had purchased the said land from one Sri Rangappa, son of Sri Thimmaiah, under registered sale deed dated 05.07.1975, copy of which is at Annexure ‘A’ to the petition. Subsequently, Sri Thimmaiah sold the said land in favour of Sri T. Doddarangaiah, the father of the petitioner, under registered sale deed dated 20.05.1991, copy of which is at Annexure ‘C’ to the petition. It is stated that Sri Doddarangaiah died on 30.03.1996, after his death, the petitioner is said to have succeeded to the petition schedule property and has been in possession of the land in question and he got it mutated to his name vide M.R. No.11/98-99, copy of which is at Annexure ‘G’ to the petition.
4. The petitioner has pointed out that Dasappa – respondent No.3 herein initiated suit in O.S. No.216/1981 on the file of Court of Prl. Munsiff, Tumakuru, against respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein for partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in the properties mentioned in the schedule to the said suit. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 herein without any manner of right, title and interest in the petition schedule property had included the same as one of the properties in the schedule to the said suit for partition. The said suit came to be decreed on 28.06.1986 (Annexure ‘H’ to the petition) and preliminary decree was ordered to be drawn. Pursuant to the said judgment and decree, respondent No.3 initiated Final Decree Proceedings in FDP No.1/1990 before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,) and JMFC., Tumakuru. The FDP Court after securing reports from the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru, and Tahasildar, ordered for drawing up of final decree, which was passed on 10.07.2006. Based on the said final decree, respondent Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 initiated proceedings in RRT(DS)CR.14/2009-10.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the material on record.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s father, T. Doddarangaiah, was not a party to the proceedings initiated by Dasappa in O.S. No.216/1981 before the Court of Prl. Munsiff, Tumakuru. Therefore, the proceedings in RRT(DS)CR.14/09-10 and notice dated 26.07.2017 initiated pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1986 and final decree dated 10.07.2006 passed in the said suit are required to be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
7. It is seen that under the impugned notice, the petitioner herein was required to appear before the Tahasildar, Tumakuru Taluk, on 22.08.2017. Though there was an opportunity available to the petitioner to appear before the Tahasildar and place all the relevant records available with him and seek appropriate relief at the hands of Tahasildar, he has approached this Court before exhausting the said remedy. In the fact situation, this Court find that it was not proper on the part of the petitioner to rush to this Court by filing this writ petition, before exhausting his remedy in the aforesaid proceedings before Tahasildar.
8. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed on the premise that the same is premature and cannot be considered at this stage. In the event of the petitioner herein being aggrieved by the impugned order of Tahasildar, he is at liberty to challenge the same before an appropriate Forum.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma