Writ Petition No. 5969 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20541 WP No. 5969 of 2021 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 5969 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: K. P. AJJAIAH S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A MINIGARAHALLI VILLAGE BILICHODU HOBLI JAGALURU TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577553 (BY SRI. MARUTHI S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577001 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577001 3. TAHASILDAR JAGALURU TALUK JAGALURU-577528 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HARAPPANAHALLI Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20541 WP No. 5969 of 2021 HC-KAR HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PRESENTLY BELLARY DISTRICT-583131 5. LEELAVATHI W/O BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC-AGRICULTURIST R/A SURADDIHALLI VILLAGE BILICHODU HOBLI, JAGALUR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577553
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4, SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S. ADVOCATE FOR R5) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN REVISION PETITION NO.10/2019 DTD. 19.02.2021 PRODUCED AT ANNX-Q BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DTD. 25.10.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AT ANNX-K, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE ORDER DTD. 01.02.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED AT ANNX-L AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER DIRECTION, OR RELIEF AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure-Q) in Revision Appeal No.10/2019, on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) at Bengaluru, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20541 WP No. 5969 of 2021 HC-KAR confirming the order dated 25.10.2016, passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-K), consequently order dated 01.02.2019 passed
Decision
by the respondent No.1 (Annexure-L) impugned to the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The lis between the parties to the writ petition is with regard to considering the khatha made in respect of the subject land as well as the out come of the suit, pending consideration before the competent civil court. 4. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the observations made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at paragraphs 20 and 22 which reads as follows: "20. In our considered view both 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent have failed to consider these aspects while passing their respective orders. When already both the Petitioner and 5th Respondent herein have approached the competent Civil Court seeking appropriate reliefs, therefore, it would not be proper to set aside the order dt:12.6.2013. It is needless to say that the result of both the said suits would decide the rights of both the Petitioner and 5th respondent herein, in respect of their respective claims. Therefore, it is not proper to disturb the revenue order pertaining to the sub- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20541 WP No. 5969 of 2021 HC-KAR division of Sy.No.23/2, existing prior to institution of the said suits. 21. ******* 22. Before parting with this order, we would like to make it clear that the observations made in this order cannot be construed as findings of this Tribunal in respect of the right and interest of the parties over the disputed properties. It is needless to say that it is for the Civil Court to decide right and interest of the parties in respect of their respective portions purchased under registered sale deeds dt:8.6.2012 and 24.01.2014. With these observations, we have answered the point under consideration accordingly.” 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the suit filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.50/2016, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, JMFC, Jagaluru seeking relief of declaration came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner and the suit filed by the private respondents herein in O.S.No.184/2016, seeking relief of declaration came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, and he further submits that, the matter may be relegated to the competent authority to consider the case of the parties afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20541 WP No. 5969 of 2021 HC-KAR 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the decree passed by the competent civil courts in respect of the suits are related to the title and the same is nothing to do insofar it relates to durasth and phod in respect of the subject land particularly referring to Sy.No.23/2, and accordingly he submits that, the petition be dismissed. 7. Sri Manjunath K, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 to 4, referring to the paragraphs No. 20 and 22 of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal submits that, the matter requires to be remitted to the respondent No.4. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the original order dated 25.10.2016 (Annexure-K) wherein, the 2nd respondent has remitted the matter to 4th respondent to re-consider the case of the parties afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to them and to take decision in the matter relating to conducting of phod in respect of the subject land. The said order dated 25.10.2016 at Annexure-K is confirmed by the respondent No.1 in its order dated 01.02.2019 (Annexure-L) and these two - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20541 WP No. 5969 of 2021 HC-KAR orders were challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Appeal No.10/2010 (Annexure-Q). 9. Having taken note of the observations made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at paragraphs Nos. 20 and 22 and also taking into consideration that the suits filed by the parties have concluded, I am of the view that, the impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 are just and proper and the respondent No.4 shall conduct the phod in respect of the subject land after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, and to take decision in the matter in accordance with law. 10. It is made clear that respondent No.4 shall comply with the order passed by this Court within the outer limits of 6 months from the receipt of this order. 11. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, recording the submissions of the learned counsel representing their parties, the parties are hereby directed to appear before the respondent No.4 on 04.07.2025 at 3.00 p.m. to enable the respondent No.4 to take decision in the matter in accordance with law. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20541 WP No. 5969 of 2021 HC-KAR 12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. 13. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49