THE KARNATAKA FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. NOORJAHAN

NOORJAHAN D/O HUSSAN SAB ANNIGERI AGE: 52 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD RIO KABADI ROAD, WARD NO.9, BETAGERI, TQ. & DIST. GADAG SHAHABUDDIN Sf0 HUSSAN SAB ANNIGERI AGE: 48 YEARS, 0CC: BUSINESS R/O KABADI ROAD, WARD NO.9, BETAGERI, TQ. & DIST. GADAG MAHAMMED SHAFI Sf0 KHADAR SAB KAGADAGAR AGE: 52 YEARS, 0CC: ADVOCATE, R/O KAGADAR MANJIL, PANCHAKASHARI NAGAR, GADAG. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG, DIST, GADAG THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG, DIST. GADAG

THE TAHASILDAR, GADAG, DIST. GADAG THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT BETAGERI, TQ. GADAG, DIST. GADAG. ...RESPONDENTS

<BY SRI.SADIQ N.GOODWALA, ADV. FOR Ri AND 2, SRI.MAHESH WODEYAR, AGA FOR R4 TO 7, R3 IS SD) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH SET ASIDE THE ORDER COURT ACT, DATED:08/04/201 1, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.63527/2010, AND FURTHER TO REJECT THE SAID WRIT PETITION. PRAYING TO, 1961, THIS APPEAL COMING FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DELIVERED THE D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., DAY, FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT There is a delay of 56 days in presenting this appeal u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. A State Financial Corporation namely Karnataka State Financial Corporation appellant. The appellant is aggrieved that the learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for ‘the Act’) to the detriment of the appellant-Corporation as certain 3 entries revenue records respect properties which had been offered by way of security in favour of the bank by the respondent-Borrower and by deposit of title deeds had been set aside. The Assistant Commissioner in an appeal u/s 136 (3) of the Act preferred by the borrowers and in the revision Corporation, Deputy Commissioner had rightly directed the entries in the name of the Corporation it has been nevertheless quashed by learned Single Judge without appreciating the background and therefore the present appeal.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had been put on notice and represented through counsel Sri. Sadiq N. Goodwala.

For record sake, we condone the delay and allow the application accepting the explanation offered in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking for condonation of delay. 4

However, after hearing Sri. Budihal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Sadiq N.Goodwala, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, we find there is absolutely no merit in this appeal.

5. Though Mr.Veeresh Budihal, learned counsel strongly urged that the Deputy Commissioner had acted on the basis of certain judicial proceedings u/s 31 (1) (a) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, directed the borrowers not to create charge in favour of any third parties in respect of the property under question and therefore the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was justified and the learned Single Judge without appreciating this background has quashed the order and the order has to be set aside etc., We are not so much persuaded to accept this submission as in the first instance attaching undue importance to revenue entries has become a malice and it rather 5 surprising even a Financial Corporation functioning under the State Financial Corporations Act also has fallen prey to this malice.

As submitted by Sri. Veeresh Budihal, learned counsel the appellant, the title deeds of subject property is with the appellant-Corporation. It is for the Corporation to make use of it and recover the loan advanced to the respondents in any manner as they are advised and in accordance with law.

7. A revenue entry in favour of the Corporation by itself definitely will not help any recovery of the loan nor does recover the loan by itself. Even otherwise, we find that a direction by a Civil Court to a borrower not to encumber the property does not necessarily mean the revenue entry should be transferred to the name of the Corporation. 6

In any view of the matter, we find the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was not either proper or one with jurisdiction as the Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction in respect of an order passed the appellate authority u/s 132 (2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to work out rights and remedies elsewhere in accordance with law. JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE Jm/