IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.19657 OF 2011(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SUBBA SHETTY S/O MARI SHETTY, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs 1(a) MANJUNATH S/O SUBBA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. HANUMANTHA SHETTY S/O MARI SHETTY, *SINCE DECEASED BY LRs 2(a) *REMA W/O SARVANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BEHIND OLD COURT BUILDING, PANDAVAPURA.
2(b) KRISHNAPPA S/O HANUMANTHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BEHIND BDO OFFICE, TB EXTENSION, NAGAMANGALA.
2(c) RAMASHETTY S/O HANUMANTHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT GIRIYARAHALLI, CHINNAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA.
2(d) NAGAMMA W/O THANADAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OPP. URDU SCHOOL, PANDAVAPURA. ... PETITIONERS *AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 05.01.2016.
(BY SRI V.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA.
3. THE THASILDHAR SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR CHINAKURALI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.
5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT BANNANGADI CIRCLE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK.
6. SURYANARAYANA SHETTY S/O MARI SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O GIRIYARAHALLI VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK.
7. VENKATE GOWDA S/O MOOTE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O GIRIYARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTHESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI K.L.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R7 R6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.10.10 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA I.E., R1 IN RP.NO.91/00 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2000 PASSED IN R.MISC.97 OF 98-99 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA I.E., R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTRIES IN M.R.NO.2/90-91 PASSED BY THE R3.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The property bearing Sy.No.209/1 measuring 52 guntas at Giriyarahalli, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, was divided between the family. The uncle of the petitioner sold his portion of the property measuring 25 guntas to the 7th respondent by virtue of a sale deed dated 19-4-1968. Accordingly, the names were mutated. After the demise of the father, the remaining land of an extent of 27 guntas was mutated in the name of the Sri Subba Shetty-the petitioner. The 7th respondent challenged the same before the Assistant Commissioner. The same was allowed. The name of the 7th respondent was entered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner. It was rejected. Hence, the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that they are the owners of the land in question. That only because of the Dhurasthi, in favour of the 7th respondent the authorities could not have passed the impugned order. The same is disputed by the respondents.
3. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The authorities were justified in passing the impugned orders based on the Dhurasthi conducted. Therefore, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they would have to establish their right, title or interest before the Civil Court. The authorities cannot be found fault with, in passing the impugned orders based on the available material. However, it is needless to state that all the revenue entries are always subject to the orders of the Civil Court.
The petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-