IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.3091 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. S.BYREGOWDA S/O. LATE CHICKKASONAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O. CHADALAPURA VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562101 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI JAI PRAKASH REDDY M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPUR – 562 101 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562101 4. SRI K.MUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O. KOTHANOOR VILALGE CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 562101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26/09/2018 IN WP NO.44460/2017 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN SOFAR AS ISSUING DIRECTION TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO ENTER THE NAMES OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN, RESPONDENT AND NAMES OF THE ERSTWHILE VENDORS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND DISMISS THE WP NO.44460/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide order dated 26.09.2018 in W.P.Nos.44460/2017 c/w 16408/2017 (KLR-RES).
2. Appellant claims to have purchased property measuring 01 acre 25 guntas in survey No.6/2018 sitauted at Kothanur Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk.
3. Perusal of the records disclose that, fourth respondent has conveyed only 01 acre 09 guntas and retained 16 guntas out of 01 acre 25 guntas. Appellant in collusion with the revenue authorities got mutated his name in respect of entire extent of 01 acre 25 guntas against which, fourth respondent has initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed petitioner’s plea and directed to mutate 16 guntas in petitioner’s name. Feeling aggrieved fourth respondent challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner held that petitioner’s vendors were entitled for 16 guntas of land. The said order was challenged in separate writ petitions by both petitioner and the fourth respondent before the Hon’ble Single Judge. By the impugned common order, the Hon’ble Single Judge has set-aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and directed the revenue authorities to restore the names of petitioner, his vendor and fourth respondent subject to decision in O.S. No.162/2014 filed by fourth respondent. Hence, this writ appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
5. Perusal of Annexure-B/Sale deed establishes the fact that the sale was made only to an extent of 01 acre 09 guntas and for the reasons best known, the appellant/petitioner in collusion with revenue authorities got mutated his name in the revenue records to the entire extent of 01 acre 25 guntas and that was the subject matter before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal holding that only 01 acre 09 guntas of land was conveyed to the fourth respondent and directed 16 guntas of land to be registered in the name of fourth respondent’s vendors. The Hon’ble Single Judge has recorded that the Deputy Commissioner embarked upon a fact finding exercise to determine the title of parties and set-aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. He further directed that revenue entries shall be restored in the name of petitioner, fourth respondent and his vendors and the same shall be subject to the result of civil suit in O.S. No.162/2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikkaballapura.
6. It is settled that revenue authorities shall not embark upon fact finding exercise. Fourth respondent has already filed a civil suit. The Hon’ble Single Judge has directed that the revenue entries in the name of parties shall be subject to outcome of decision in the civil suit. In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.
Resultantly this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE HJ