IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.43970 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
YOUSUF KHAN S/O LATE ABDULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS R/AT NO.1104, FCI CROSS SRI SAI OLD AGE HOME CROSS PATALAMMA LAYOUT NEAR KATERAMMA TEMPLE KADUGODI BENGALURU-560 067 …PETITIONER (BY SHRI U.VINAY RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI T.N.RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM BENGALURU-560 036 5. AMEER KHAN S/O LATE PEER KHAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS [DELETED VIDE ORDER DTD.24.4.2019] 6. HABEEB KHAN S/O LATE PEER KHAN AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 7. HAMEED KHAN S/O LATE PEER KHAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 8. IBRAHIM KHAN S/O LATE PEER KHAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.5-8 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.80/2, 1ST CROSS IBRAHIM SAHEB STREET RASHATNAGAR, NOOR LAYOUT A.C.POST, BENGALURU-560 045 9. MASTAN BEIG S/O LATE ADAM BEIG MAJOR NO.16, 2ND CROSS TANK ROAD K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036 [DELETED VIDE ORDER DTD.24.4.2019] SMT PYARI JAAN BEIG W/O LATE ADAM BEIG SINCE DEAD BY LRS 10. PYARE JAAN BEIG S/O LATE PYARI JAAN BEIG MAJOR 11. FATHIMA D/O LATE PYARI JAAN BEIG MAJOR 12. GAFOOR BEIG S/O LATE PYARI JAAN BEIG MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT NO.355/3 ANANDABABU LAYOUT AMBEDKAR COLONY HOSAKOTE TOWN BENGALURU-562 114 13. SMT AFROZ (DAUGHTER IN LAW OF FATHIMA) MAJOR 14. ABDULLA BEIG S/O PYARI JAAN MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO. 13 & 14 ARE RESIDING AT NO.130, 2ND CROSS NEW POLICE STATION ROAD K.R.PURAM BENGALURU-560036 15. ROSHAN BEIG S/O LATE PYARI JAAN MAJOR 16. PARVEEN BEIG D/O LATE PYARI JAAN MAJOR 17. ASSIN D/O LATE PYARI JAAN MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO. 15 TO 17 ARE RESIDING AT NO.355/3 ANANDABABU LAYOUT AMBEDKAR COLONY HOSAKOTE TOWN BENGALURU-562 114 18. NOORI D/O LATE PYARI JAAN MAJOR 19. AKBAR BEIG S/O LATE PYARI JAAN MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO.18 & 19 ARE RESIDING AT NO.130 2ND CROSS NEW POLICE STATION ROAD K.R.PURAM BENGALURU-560036 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R.1-R.4 SMT. SUNANDA SARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI D.N.SAHADEVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R.6-R.8 V/O/DTD:17.08.2016-NOTICE TO R.10-R.19 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2016 PASSSED BY R-2 IN R.P.72/2011-12 AT ANNEXURE-A IS ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SAME AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri U.Vinay Raghavendra, learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for the State and Smt. Sunanda Sarkar, learned advocate for respondents No.6 to 8.
2. Petitioner along with one Abdulla Khan filed O.S.No.186/1973 against one Peer Khan and Adam Beig. The suit was decreed pursuant to a compromise between parties filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to judgment and decree dated 12.12.1973, petitioner approached the Tahsildar to effect mutation in revenue entries. Accordingly, Tahsildar passed an order dated 20.03.2008. Contesting private respondents challenged the said order passed by Tahsildar before the Assistant Commissioner. The said appeal was dismissed on 31.03.2011. Feeling aggrieved, private respondents challenged the said order in R.P.No.72/2011- 12 before Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, and the same has been allowed. Hence this petition.
3. Learned advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner’s name has been entered in the revenue records, pursuant to a decree passed by Civil Court. However, Deputy Commissioner, without recording any reasons has reversed the order passed by the Tahsildar.
4. Learned AGA and learned advocate for private respondents argued opposing the petition.
5. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that Deputy Commissioner has recorded facts in six pages and in the last Paragraph, he has recorded that as private respondents did not produce certified copies of the documents, Assistant Commissioner has rejected their appeal. Except this finding, no cogent reasons are recorded to allow the appeal.
7. It is not in dispute that parties have entered into a compromise by filing petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. Tahsildar has effected mutation based on the compromise decree and the same has been upheld by the Assistant Commissioner. If private respondents were aggrieved by the order passed by Tahsildar, they ought to have worked out their remedy before the Civil Court. It is settled that Revenue Authorities cannot decide title.
8. As noticed hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is bereft in any reasons. But, the order passed by the Tahsildar is based on the judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil Court.
9. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration.
Hence, the following;
ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 27.07.2016 in RP.No.72/2011-12 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, is set-aside; and (iii) Order dated 20.03.2008 in Case No.RRT(Vivada)CR.221/2007-08 passed by Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, is restored.
10. In view of disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutary applications stand disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV