The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9457 W.P. No.7995/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.7995/2015 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI. K. DHARMARAJ S/O LATE KRISHNOJIRAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O DUGLAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577144. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V. BHOJARAJA, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LANDS RECORDS CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101. 4. THE TAHASILDAR TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.
Legal Reasoning
5. SMT. SHARIFABEE W/O LATE AMIRJAN R/O MUSLIM COLONY DUGLAPURA VILLAGE Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9457 W.P. No.7995/2015 KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577144. 6. SRI. C.B. VISWANATHA S/O LATE BOMMARAYIGOWDA R/O DUGALAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577144. 7. SRI. B. RAJEGOWDA S/O LATE BOMMARAYIGOWDA BAVIKERE VILLAGE LAKKAVALLI VIA, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577144. (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. G. SHANKAR, ADV., FOR R6 & R7 R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER IN NO.DDLR.R.P18/09-10 AND 14/2014-15 AS ANNEX-H & L DTD.22.3.2011 & 1.1.2015 RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE R-1 AND DIRECTION TO RECTIFICATION THE WRONG ENTRY IN THE M.R.NO.53/2007- 08 TO CONVERT THE SURVEY NUMBER 358 INSTEAD OF OLD NUMBER 164/P ANNEX-F, AND RTC TO PROPER DISPLAY THE EXTENT AS REMAINING THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IS ACRE 01-08 GUNTAS IN ANNEX-J1 & J2 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9457 W.P. No.7995/2015 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.03.2011. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order has allowed the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.5 and has passed an order in the following terms: ಆ(cid:2)ೇಶಆ(cid:2)ೇಶಆ(cid:2)ೇಶಆ(cid:2)ೇಶ (cid:7)ೕಲ(cid:9)ನ(cid:11) ಪ(cid:13)ರಸ(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:2)ೆ. ತ(cid:17)ೕ(cid:20)ೆ(cid:21)ೆ (cid:22)ಾಲೂ(cid:25)ಕು ಕಸಬ (cid:29)ೋಬ(cid:30) ದು ಾ!ಪ(cid:13)ರ ಾ"ಮದ ಹ%ೇ ಸ.ನಂ.164 ರ’(cid:25) (cid:29)ೊಸ.ನಂ.358 ರ ದುರ(cid:18)( ಆ(cid:2)ೇಶವನು* ರದು+ಪ,(cid:18)(cid:2)ೆ (cid:29)ಾಗೂ .ಾನ/ (cid:18)(cid:11)0 1ಾ/2ಾಲಯದ ಅಂ5ಮ ಆ(cid:2)ೇಶವನು* ಅನುಸ(cid:17)(cid:18) ಕ"ಮವ6ಸುವ ಷರ58 ೆ ಒಳಪ,(cid:18) ತಹ;ೕ<ಾ+= ತ(cid:17)ೕ(cid:20)ೆ(cid:21)ೆ (cid:22)ಾಲೂ(cid:25)ಕು ಇವ(cid:17) ೆ ಆ(cid:2)ೇ;(cid:18)(cid:2)ೆ. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had instituted a suit against respondent No.5 in O.S.No.192/1999 and two others. This suit was for an injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.164 measuring 4 acres which had been granted to the father of the writ petitioner. This suit was decreed by the judgment dated 06.04.2002, and respondent No.5 and two other defendants were restrained from interfering with the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9457 W.P. No.7995/2015 possession of the petitioner over the suit property i.e., Sy.No.164 measuring 4 acres. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this decree has become final and in fact this decree was put to execution when interference was made by the defendants and in the execution petition, a memo was filed by the second judgment debtor to the effect that they would not interfere in the possession of the petitioner over the alleged decree property. It is therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the entitlement of the petitioner over 4 acres was accepted by respondent No.5 and hence he would be entitled to enjoy the extent of 4 acres. 4. It is however admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of this 4 acres, an extent of 2 acres 32 guntas has been sold and only an extent of 1 acre 8 guntas has been retained. It is contended that not withstanding the fact that the writ petitioner had retained 1 acre 8 guntas, the durasti was conducted in which it was stated that the land bearing Sy.No.164 was assigned new - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9457 W.P. No.7995/2015 Sy.No.358 and the extent was reduced to 3 acres 34 guntas and this was further phoded into 358/1 and 358/2 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas and 1 acre 2 guntas. The land purchased by the petitioner's father was assigned 358/1 and shown to have an extent of 2 acres 32 guntas, but in respect of the land retained as against the extent of 1 acre 8 guntas, the land was shown as 1 acre 2 guntas, thereby reducing the extent by 6 guntas. 5. Respondent No.5 filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the podi made in respect of Sy.Nos.358/1 and 358/2 contending that the property that was in her possession for which she had made a claim for regularization of unauthorized occupation was included. The Deputy Commissioner considered this revision petition, has stated as follows in reasoning: "vÀದನಂತರ ?1ಾಂಕ 11/01/11 ರ (cid:11)@ಾರAೆಯ’(cid:25) Bಾ? ಪರ ವCೕಲರು ತಮ(cid:9) Bಾದ ಮಂ,(cid:18), DDLR ರವರ ಸ(ಳ ತDEೆ ವರ?ಯನು* ಸಮFG(cid:18)ರು(cid:22)ಾ8(cid:21)ೆ. ಮತು8 (cid:17)(cid:11)ಜIJ ನ’(cid:25) ತಂ?ರುವ (cid:11)@ಾರಗಳನು* ಪ"Kಾ8L(cid:18) ಅLೕಲನು* ಪ(cid:13)ರಸ(cid:16)(cid:17)ಸಲು (cid:20)ೋ(cid:17)ರು(cid:22)ಾ8(cid:21)ೆ. ನಂತರ ಪ"5Bಾ?-3 ರವರು ಸMತಃ (cid:29)ಾಜ(cid:21)ಾO .ಾನ/ (cid:18)(cid:11)0 1ಾ/2ಾಲಯದ’(cid:25) 5ೕಪ(cid:13)G ನಮ(cid:9) ಪರ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9457 W.P. No.7995/2015 ಆOರುತ8(cid:2)ೆ. ಪ"ಕರಣದ ಮೂಲ ದರEಾಸು8 ಕಡತ ಲಭ/(cid:11)ರುವ(cid:13)?ಲ(cid:25) ಮತು8 ಅSG(cid:2)ಾರರು ನಮ(cid:9) ತಂ(cid:2)ೆಯವ(cid:17)ಂದ ಜTೕನನು* Uೋಗ/ (Lease) ಪVೆ?ರು(cid:22)ಾ8(cid:21)ೆ ಎಂದು Bಾ?ಸು(cid:22)ಾ8(cid:21)ೆ. ಇದ(cid:20)ೆ(cid:16) ಅSG(cid:2)ಾರರು ಪ"5C"X(cid:18), 1ಾವ(cid:13)ಗಳY Uೋಗ/(cid:20)ೆ(cid:16) ಪVೆ?ರುವ(cid:13)?ಲ(cid:25). ಬದ<ಾO ಸದ(cid:17) ನಂಬ(cid:17)ನ’(cid:25) ಅನZಕೃತBಾO Kಾಗುವ(cid:30) .ಾ,(cid:20)ೊಂಡು ಬಂ?ರು(cid:22)ೆ8ೕ1ೆ ಎಂದು Bಾ?(cid:18)ರು(cid:22)ಾ8(cid:21)ೆ. ಇದರಂ(cid:22)ೆ ಪ"ಕರಣದ (cid:11)@ಾರAೆಯನು* ಮು(cid:20)ಾ8ಯ ೊ(cid:30)(cid:18), ಸ(ಳ ತDEೆಯನು* ಸMತಃ .ಾಡಲು ಅ\]ಾ"ಯ ವ/ಕ8 ಪ,(cid:18)ದಂ(cid:22)ೆ ಪ"ಕರಣದ (cid:11)Bಾ?ತ ಪ"(cid:2)ೇಶವನು* ಸ(ಳ ತDEೆ .ಾ,(cid:2)ೆ (cid:29)ಾಗೂ .ಾನ/ (cid:18)(cid:11)0 1ಾ/2ಾಲಯದ (ಒ.ಎ^.192/99) ಆ(cid:2)ೇಶವನು* ಗಮD(cid:18)(cid:2)ೆ. (cid:7)ೕಲ(cid:16)ಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ 6ನ*<ೆಯ’(cid:25) ಗಮDಸ<ಾO, ದರEಾಸು8 ಮಂಜೂ(cid:17)(cid:2)ಾರರು KಾMZೕನ(cid:11)ರುವಂ(cid:22)ೆ ಪ(cid:20)ಾ(cid:16) _ೕ, .ಾಡ(cid:2)ೇ ಇರುವ(cid:13)ದು ತಕ(cid:21)ಾರುಗ(cid:30) ೆ (cid:20)ಾರಣBಾOರುವ(cid:13)ದು ಕಂಡು ಬರುವ 6ನ*<ೆಯ’(cid:25) ಈ 1ಾ/2ಾಲಯವ(cid:13) (cid:20)ೆಳOನಂ(cid:22)ೆ ಆ(cid:2)ೇಶ Dೕ,(cid:2)ೆ." 6. As could be seen from the above reasoning, the Deputy Commissioner does not accept the podi that was conducted and comes to the conclusion that the records were to be maintained in accordance with the decree passed by the Civil Court. This order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has been accepted by respondent No.5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that not withstanding this order which directed the authorities to abide by the decree passed by the Civil Court, the Revenue authorities have merely gone back to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9457 W.P. No.7995/2015 renaming the survey number as 164, but yet reduced the extent by 3 acres 34 guntas as against the original 4 acres which was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, basically contends that not withstanding the order of the Commissioner, an extent of 6 guntas is sought to be reduced in the land of the petitioner. 7. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner obtained a degree of injunction in O.S.No.192/1999 and he had also thereafter, initiated an execution proceedings in which the judgment debtors admitted that they would abide by the decree, the petitioner would be entitled to lay a claim over the entire extent of 4 acres which is subject matter of the suit. The Deputy Commissioner also, by the impugned order, stated that the durasti made cannot be sustained and the records will have to be maintained in accordance with the decree passed in the Civil Court. This order has admittedly not been challenged by respondent No.5. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9457 W.P. No.7995/2015 8. In that view of the matter, it would be necessary to direct the respondents to ensure that the records in respect of land bearing Sy.No.164 is indicated as 4 acres and out of the 4 acres, 2 acres 32 guntas has been sold by the petitioner's father and remaining 1 acre 8 guntas is retained by the petitioner. The writ is
Decision
accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (N.S. SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51