Sri V. Ramu @ Military Ramanna Vs. Smt. Siddamma Case Summary You Can Listen To on Caseon

0 23 Jun, 2021
Listen in mins | Read in mins

Sri V. Ramu @ Military Ramanna Vs. Smt. Siddamma

Karnataka High Court

Link copied!

Case Background

Bench

Applied Acts & Sections

No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case

Hello! How can I help you? 😊

Disclaimer: We do not store your data.

Document Text Version

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23

DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

R.S.A.No.819/2013(DEC/INJ)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO.10930/2012(KLR-RES)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO.44146/2011(KLR-RES)

IN R.S.A.No.819/2013:

1. SRI V. RAMU @ MILITARY RAMANNA

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.

a) SMT. VENKATAMMA

W/O LATE V RAMU @ MILITARY

RAMANNA, 74 YEARS

SINCE DECEASED

APPELLANTS 1(b) TO 1(e)

ARE HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

AMENDMENT IS CARRIED OUT

VIDE ORDER DATED 5.4.2018.

b) SRI R V KANTHARAJU

S/O LATE V RAMU @ MILITARY

RAMANNAM, 50 YEARS.

c) SRI R SHIVA KUMAR

S/O LATE V RAMU @ MILITARY RAMANNA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

(b) & (c) ARE R/O KANNA

MANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,

CHENNAPATNA TALUK

RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.

d) SMT. R SUNDARAMMA

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

W/O SRI T RAME GOWDA

D/O LATE V RAMU @ MILITARY

RAMANNA, 58 YEARS

R/AT No.363, GROUND FLOOR

CROSS, 8

MAIN, 4

BLOCK

KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE – 560 034.

e) SMT R JAYASHREE

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

W/O SRI S N KRIHSNA

D/O LATE V RAMU @ MILITARY

RAMANNA, 42 YEARS

R/O SATHNUR VILLAGE

KANAKAPURA TALUK

RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT- 571 511.

2. SMT. VENKATAMMA

W/O LATE V RAMU @ MILITARY

RAMANNA, 74 YEARS

R/A SY No.148, KANNAMANGALA

VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI

CHENNAPATNA TALUK

RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT- 571 511

...APPELLANTS

SINCE DECEASED APPELLANTS

1(b) TO (e) ARE HER LEGAL

REPRESENTATIVES.

(BY SRI R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. SIDDAMMA

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR

SRI D KOMARE GOWDA

S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, 67 YEARS

R/A No.92, 7

MAIN

CROSS, 3

PHASE

J P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI T N RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 03.04.2013 PASSED IN

R.A.No.164/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &

JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT,

DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.1.1997 PASSED IN

OS.262/1989 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF AND J.M.F.C.,

CHANNAPATNA.

IN W.P.No.10930/2012:

BETWEEN:

SRI. KOMARI GOWDA,

S/O LATE SIDDIAH,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

R/A NO.92, 7

MAIN ROAD,

CROSS, J P NAGAR 3

STAGE,

BANGALORE-560 078.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. T. N. RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

RAMANAGARAM SUB DIVISION,

RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT,

RAMANGARAM.

3. THE TAHSILDAR

CHANNAPATTANA TALUK,

CHANNAPATNA,

RAMANGARAM DISTRICT.

4. SMT. VENKATAMMA,

W/O LATE V RAMU,

AGED ABOUT YEARS,

R/AT NO.17/3, MIG Q BLOCK,

NANDINI LAYOUT,

BANGALORE-560 096.

RESPONDENT No.4 SINCE DECEASED

BY HER LR’S 5 TO 8 BOUGHT ON RECORD

AMENDED V.C.O DATED 5/4/2018.

5. SRI. R V KANTHARAJU,

S/O LATE V RAMU,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

R/AT NO.17/3, MIG Q BLOCK,

NANDINI LAYOUT,

BANGALORE-560 096.

6. SRI. R SHIVKUMAR,

S/O LATE V RAMU,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

R/AT NO.10/1, 1

CROSS,

A MAIN ROAD,

NANDINI LAYOUT,

BANGALORE-96.

7. SMT. R SUNDARAMMA,

W/O T RAME GOWDA,

R/AT No.40 GROUND FLOOR,

KSRP QUARTERS,

KORAMANAGALORE,

BANGALORE

8. SMT. R JAYASREE,

W/O KRISHNA,

AGED ABOUT YEARS,

R/O SATANUR VILLAGE,

KANAKAPURA MALAVALLY ROAD,

KANAKAPURA TALUK,

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE THE LR’S OF LATE V.RAMU,

THEY ARE NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING.

HENCE MADE AS PARTIES TO THE PRESENT

PROCEEDING AS THEY FILED APPLICATION FOR

RESTORATION BEFORE THE 2

RESPONDENT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. T.H. SAVITHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. R. B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8;

R5 TO 8 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING

TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN RA(LND)

(CHA) 44/2001-02 DATED 27.2.12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN W.P.No.44146/2011:

BETWEEN:

SMT. VENKATAMMA,

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS.

(a) SMT. R.SUNDARAMMA,

W/O T.RAMEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

R/O NO.622, 1

CROSS,

NTI LAYOUT, PHASE – II,

RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR,

BENGALURU – 560 092.

(b) SRI.R.V.KANTHARAJU,

S/O LATE V.RAMU,

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

R/AT NO.232, 2

CROSS,

MAIN, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,

BENGALURU – 560 086.

S/O LATE V.RAMU,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

R/AT NO.497, NTI LAYOUT,

PHASE, NEAR NARAYANA SCHOOL,

KODIGEHALLI,

BENGALURU – 560 092.

(d) SMT. R.JAYASHREE,

W/O KRISHNA,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

R/O SATANUR VILLAGE,

KANAKAPURA MALAVALLY ROAD,

KANAKAPURA TALUK,

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.K.R.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

M S BUILDINGS,

BANGALORE.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT,

RAMANAGARAM.

3. THE ASST COMMISSIONER,

RAMANAGARAM SUB DIVISION,

RAMANAGARAM.

4. THE TAHSILDAR

CHANNAPATNA TALUK,

CHANNAPATNA.

5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,

RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT,

RAMANAGARAM.

6. THE ASST DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,

CHANNAPATNA TALUK,

CHANNAPATNA.

7. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR

KASABA HOBLI,

CHANNAPATNA HOBLI,

CHANNPATNA.

8. SRI KOMARIGOWDA

S/O LATE SIDDAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

NO.92, 7

MAIN, 7

CROSS,

PHASE, J P NAGAR,

BANGALORE-560 078. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. T. H. SAVITHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R7;

SRI. T. N. RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING

TO DIRECT THE R2 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN

THE SUBJECT MATTER ON THE PROPOSAL PLACED BY THE

R4 AT ANNX-K BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE

MINUTES AND THE MAHAZAR DRAWN BY THE THEN

DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION AT

ANNX-M & N AND THE REPORT OBTAINED BY THIS COURT

BY APPOINTING A COURT COMMISSIONER IN WP 6489/94

VIDE ANNX-P AND CONDUCTING THIS SPOT INSPECTION

IF NEED BE, FORTHWITH.

THE RSA AND WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON

FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THE COURT DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

W.P.No.44146/11 is filed by one

Smt.Venkatamma, since deceased represented by her

legal representatives against the State of Karnataka,

and others and Respondent No.8 is Sri Komarigowda

wherein petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to

respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision in the

subject matter and the proposal placed by respondent

No.4, at Annexure-X, by considering Minutes and the

Mahazar drawn by the then Divisional Commissioner,

Bangalore Division,(Annexure-M & N) and the report

obtained by appointing a Court Commissioner in

W.P.No.6489/1994 vide Annexure-P and conducting

the spot inspection if need be forthwith.

2. The substance of this writ petition is,

petitioner’s husband late V. Ramu was an Ex-

serviceman, he was cultivating the land bearing

Sy.No.148 of Kannamangala Village, Kasaba Hobli,

Channapatna Taluk, to an extent of 8 acres as

unauthorized cultivator and he has developed the said

land as coconut and mango garden. He retired from

Army Service in 1971 since then he cultivating the

same and constructed a residential house.

3. It is further stated that on the application

made by petitioner’s husband late V. Ramu, for grant,

respondents authorities had issued a Grant Certificate

regularizing 4 acres of land in favour of petitioner’s

husband on 15-10-1980 and revenue entries have

been made in her husband’s name. It is further

stated that in respect of remaining 4 acres of land,

petitioner submitted her application for regularization

of her unauthorised cultivation on 8-8-1991 and it is

pending consideration.

4. Thereafter, respondent No.8, Sri.

Komarigowda who was studying engineering degree

in the year 1970-71 had applied for regularization of

04 acres of land bearing Sy.No.149 of Kannamangala

Village as if he was cultivating the same. However ,

Tahasildar granted four acres of land in his favour vide

order dated 23.04.1971 bearing No.LND.SR.1508/70-

71 and thereafter Khatha was made in his favour in

Sy.no.149 to an extent of 4 acres. It is the further

case of petitioner that 8

respondent never cultivated

any land in any survey number and he is not in

possession of any land in Kannamangala, and in 1971

he was a student of Engineering degree and thereafter

he joined Government service in the year 1973 as

Assistant Engineer. Thereafter Komarigowda had

made an application to change of spot from Sy.

No.149 to Sy.No.148 and by colluding with revenue

authorities manipulated the registers maintained by

the Government regarding the grant, wherein instead

of 4 acres he has manipulated it as ‘4 hectares’ and

based on the same and colluding with survey

authorities, durasth was made for 9 acres 36 guntas

in Sy.No.148 even though no land was granted to

him in Sy.No.148 of Kannamangala Village and while

doing durasth Sy.No.255 was assigned and 9 acres 36

guntas came to be entered in the name of 8

respondent even though he was not in possession.

5. Thereafter with a malafide intention, 8

respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour

of his own mother Siddamma on 23-5-1988. Further,

the revenue entries were also made in her favour.

Thereafter, said Siddamma filed a suit in

O.S.No.262/1989 for injunction against the petitioner

and her husband though she was not in possession

and obtained a decree, against which, petitioner and

her husband filed an appeal in RA No.10/1997 which

came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to

the trial court by judgment dated 31-1-1997.

Thereafter, mother of 8

respondent filed second

appeal in MSA No.133/1997, which came to be

allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial

court. In the meanwhile, Siddamma died who is

mother of 8

respondent-Komarigowda and he got

transferred the revenue entries in his name and taking

advantage of making durasth in Sy.no.255 of

Kannamangala village in respect of 9 acres 36 guntas

of land, he started interfering with the petitioner’s

possession and in this regard, petitioner’s husband

had given a representation to the Assistant Director of

Land Records, the Assistant Commissioner and also

Tahsildar. The Assistant Commissioner after securing

report of ADLR cancelled the durasth made in

Sy.No.255 of Kannamangala in favour of respondent

No.8-Komarigowda by order dated 6-11-1990. The

Deputy Commissioner set aside the order dated

06.11.1990 passed by the Assistant Commissioner on

an appeal preferred by 8

respondent in

LND:RA:8/90-91 and remanded the matter to the

Assistant Commissioner for consideration afresh by

order dated 16-8-1991.

6. The Deputy/Divisional Commissioner

conducted spot inspection and verification of

documents on 29.04.1992. Thereafter, revision was

preferred to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal challenging

the order dated 16.8.1991 by petitioner’s husband.

That order came to be set aside and the same was

remanded to Tahsildar. This Court vide order dated

01.07.1998 appointed ADLR, Ramanagar, as the Court

Commissioner in W.P.No.6489/1994 filed by 8

respondent to conduct survey and give report as to

who is in possession of the land in question. Pursuant

to the said order, the Court Commissioner inspected

the spot and submitted the report on 16.09.1998.

This Court disposed of the W.P.No.6489/1994 on

01.06.1999.

7. Challenging the same, an appeal was

preferred in W.A.No.6101/1999 before the Division

Bench of this Court. Division Bench of this Court

disposed of the said appeal on 12-6-2000 and

remanded the matter to Tahsildar to take decision

after enquiry. On 20.08.2001, Tahsildar passed an

order about the holdings of the petitioner herein and

respondent No.8, even though respondent No. 8 was

not in possession. Thereafter, on 16.03.2002, the

DDLR Bangalore Division passed an order rectifying

the mistake crept in relating to the eastern boundary

of the petitioner’s land. This order was challenged by

8th respondent in W.P.No.21010/2002 before this

Court. Vide order dated 15.6.2005 learned single

Judge of this Court dismissed the same. The said

order also was challenged before the Division Bench of

this Court in W.A. No.2952/2005 which came to be

allowed thereby setting aside the order of learned

Single Judge on 01.10.2009. Thereafter, on the basis

of the previous orders of this court on 23.10.2010, the

then Tahsildar has placed the proposal before the

Deputy Commissioner to cancel the durasth. Under

these circumstances the above writ petition came to

be filed.

8. The grounds urged by petitioner

Smt.Venkatamma are that the respondent No.8

Komarigowda is not in possession of any portion of

land either in Sy.Nos.148 or 149 of Kannamangala

Village. Petitioner also adds that she and her husband

have developed the land in question into the mango

and coconut garden. They have also constructed

residential house and residing there. Thus, the relief

sought by the petitioner, Smt. Venkatamma is for an

appropriate direction directing Respondent No.2 i.e.,

Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara, to take

appropriate decision in the subject matter of the

proposal placed by the respondent No.4 Tahsildar,

Channapattana Taluk as per Annexure-K by referring

the minutes, mahazar vide Annexures – M and N.

Annexure-P is the copy of the report obtained by the

Court Commissioner by this Court in

W.P.No.6489/1994.

9. Further, Annexure-A shows total extent of

land situate in Sy.No.148 is 535 acres and 21 guntas

belonging to Government in the year 1976-77. The

Annexures-B1, B2 and B3 are the photographs of the

land with a building. Annexure- B4 is the Survey

Sketch of the land in Sy.No.148 wherein a rectangular

shape land named as Block No.1 and Block No.2 and

in the adjoining space, it is shown as this land is

granted to one Military Ramanna. The said Military

Ramanna is stated that he was also called as Military

Ramu in the and Sri. Basarajappa’s land is mentioned

as 4 acres and Kempamma’s land is shown as 4 acres

in the footnote. The Grant Certificate is marked a s

Annexure-C wherein, 4 acres of land in Sy.No.148 was

granted to one Sri. V.Ramu who is also stated to be

known as Military Ramanna. As such Annexure-D is

the application filed by the writ petitioner Smt.

Venkatamma for grant of 4 acres land in Sy.No.148.

Whereby, Annexure-E is RTC extract of Sy.No.149

mentioned in mutation MR.No.2/79-80, 4 acres of

land in the name of Komarigowda.

10. Annexure-F reflects that Sy.No.149 tallies

with 4 acres /9 acres 36 guntas and out of which, 4

acres of land was granted to Sri. Komarigowda,

through darkasth on 23.7.1991. Annexure-G is stated

to be the details of Sri.B.Komarigowda showing that

he is a Government servant. Annexure-H is copy of

the judgment dated 26.03.1998 passed in MSA

No.133/1997. Annexure-J is the order dated

06.11.1990 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in

Appeal No.25/1990-91 wherein he has made an

observation that the land in Sy.No.148 to the extent

of 4 acres being granted in the name of

Sri.Komarigowda as Sy.No.255 is rejected and

directed to go ahead with durasth work. At this

juncture, it is necessary to mention that the Deputy

Commissioner allowed the appeal preferred by

Komarigowda in LND. RA No.8/1990-91 and set aside

the order dated 06.11.1990 and this order of the

Deputy Commissioner was challenged by Sri.V.Ramu

in Revision Petition No. 168/1991 marked at

Annexure-L. Annexure-Q is W.P.No.6489/1994 filed by

Komarigowda challenging the order of Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal 11.01.1994. The said writ petition

came to be disposed of by observing as under:

“4. In this view, finding no merit in the

writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of. It

is made clear that the report so made by the

Tahsildar shall always be the subject to the

result of the suit that is pending between the

parties.”

11. Challenging the above order, an appeal in

W.A.No.6101/1999 was filed by Komarigowda and one

Siddamma with reference to grant of 9 acres 36

guntas. The Division Bench of this Court vide its

judgment dated 12.06.2000 has observed as under:

“.......In the circumstances, we maintain the

order of the Learned Single Judge with certain

modified directions until the Tahsildar coming

to a conclusion that if on enquiry, that the

earlier order requires a change the facts of the

case. In the circumstances, we hold that the

earlier order passed by the Tahsildar shall not

be disturbed until the Tahsildar comes to

conclusion on an enquiry that the same

requires reconsideration. The enquiry by the

Tahsildar has to be completed within six

months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. Parties are to appear before this

Tahsildar on 10.7.2000 for appropriate orders.

6. The Appeal is disposed of with the above

directions. We make it clear that the parties

are to maintain status-quo as on today till

completion of the proceedings before the

Tahsildar.”

12. Pursuant to the above, the Tahsildar sent

the communication bearing No.L.N.D.C.R. 70-98-99

and the operative portion of the order is in Kannada,

which is extracted as under:

“DzÉÃ±À

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ 140(2)gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ »qÀÄªÀ½AiÀÄ

J¯ÉèUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ «ªÁzÀ GAmÁVgÀÄªÀ »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ

jÃvÁå «ªÀgÀªÁV C£ÀÄ§AzsÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀÄ¸Àj¹ PÀqÀvÀUÀ¼À°ègÀÄªÀ

zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀA G¥À«¨sÁUÀzÀ ¨sÀÆzÁR°UÀ¼À

¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ¤zÉð±ÀPÀgÀªÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÀßªÀÄAUÀ® UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.148gÀ°è

ºÉÆ¸À ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.255£ÀÄß r.PÉÆªÀiÁjUËqÀjUÉ 9 JPÀgÉ 36 UÀÄAmÉ

d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀ¹Û ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ EzÀPÉÌ ZÉPÀÄÌ§A¢ü:

¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ : PÀté gÀ¸ÉÛ.

¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : «. gÁªÀÄÄgÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 287£ÉÃ

ºÉÆ¸À ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï ¸ÀévÀÄÛ.

GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 148gÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ.

zÀQëtPÉÌ : ZÉÆÃ¼ÀªÀiÁgÀ£À ºÀ½î UÀr.

F ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «. gÁªÀÄÄgÀªÀjUÉ EzÉÃ ¸ÀªÉð

£ÀA. 148gÀ°è ºÉÆ¸À ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 287 DVzÀÄÝ 4 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ

ZÉPÀÄÌ§A¢ü.

¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ : ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 255, r. PÉÆªÀiÁjUËqÀgÀ

(ºÁ°Ã ¹zÀÝªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ) d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ.

¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : 148gÀ G½PÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ.

GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : EzÉÃ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 148gÀ ¥ÉÊQ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ.

zÀQëtPÉÌ : ZÉÆÃ¼ÀªÀiÁgÀ£ÀºÀ½î

F ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ 4 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

zÀÄgÀ¹ÛAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀéAvÀ d«ÄÃ£ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ZÉPÀÄÌ§A¢üUÀ½UÉ

C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀægÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀÆ zÁR®ÄUÀ¼À

¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀªÀgÀÄ ¤AiÀiÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ UÀr gÉÃSÉÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß

UÀÄwð¹ zÀÄgÀ¹Û ¥Àr¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃ¢¹zÉÝÃ£É.”

13. By the above said order, the Tahsildar

Channapattana Taluk, has clarified the land that was

granted to Sri. Ramu in Sy.No.148 was modified as

new Sy.No.287 to the extent of 4 acres.

14. Annexure ‘I’ is the copy of proceedings

before the Deputy Director, Land Records,

Ramanagara, regarding Durasthi, Sy. No.148 and the

new Sy.No.287 and 255, new sy.no.267 and

mentioning of 255 wrongly instead of Sy.No.148.

15. The Deputy Director, Land Records passed

an order dated 16.03.2002 observing that while

making the durasth for 4 acres of land in Sy.No.148 of

Kannamangala Village belonging to the petitioner’s

husband as Sy.No.287, the eastern boundary was

wrongly mentioned as Sy. No.255 instead of

Sy.No.148. He directed the Assistant Director of Land

Records, Ramanagaram, to maintain as Sy.No.148

instead of Sy.No.255 on the eastern boundary of the

petitioner’s lands in Sy.No.287. Challenging the same,

W.P.No.21010/2002 was filed by Komarigowda before

this Court. This writ petition was disposed of giving

liberty to the petitioner to workout his before the Civil

Court. Against the said order, appeal in

W.A.No.2952/2005 was filed. The same came to be

allowed on 01.10.2009 by quashing the order dated

16.03.2002 passed in W.P.No.21010/2002. This order

again came to be challenged before the Apex Court in

SLP No.140/2012. It was dismissed on the ground of

delay on 10.12.2005.

16. W.P.No.10930/2012 is preferred by

petitioner-Komarigowda against the order dated

27.02.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner,

Ramanagaram Sub Division, Ramanagaram in R.A.

(L.N.D.) (CHA) 44/2001-02 vide Annexure ‘A’.

17. Komarigowda in the present petition claims

that he is the owner of a land to the extent of 9 acres

36 guntas in Sy.No.149 situate at Kannamangala

Village, Channapatna Taluk by virtue of Grant dated

23.07.1971 as per Annexure-B. Further, he states

that during survey by ADLR on 12.05.1972 and

noticing that of 9 acres 36 guntas as claimed by

Komarigowda is in Sy. No.148 which is abuting to

sy.No.149 of the same village and he was in

occupation of the same, proceedings were initiated to

correct the said survey number. Subsequently, notice

was issued to petitioner by ADLR regarding completion

of durasti work in Sy.No.148 and a new number was

assigned to portion of the property held by the

petitioner in Sy.No.148. The same was assigned

Re.Sy.No.255 in Kannamangala village. It is stated

that on 15.10.1980, 4 acres came to be granted to

one Ramu (now represented by his LRs respondent

Nos. 4 to 8) in Sy.No.148 along with 57 others. It is

also submitted that said Ramu started interfering with

the possession, the mother of Komarigowda filed a

suit in O.S.No.262/1989 for declaration and

injunction in respect of land in possession to the

extent of 9 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.255 against

Ramu. By order dated 06.03.1990, ADLR was

appointed as Court Commissioner to identify the

property of Komarigowda. It is necessary to mention

herein that the petitioner in this writ petition is

Komarigowda and not Ramu. The said suit came to

be decreed on 11-1-1997, against which Ramu

preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.10/1997 which

came to be allowed and matter was remanded to trial

court. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-

Komarigowda preferred MSA No.133/1997 which came

to be allowed matter was remanded to lower appellate

court with a direction to keep it pending till disposal of

W.P.No.6489/1994.

18. Further, on 06.11.1990, proceedings were

initiated by Ramu against petitioner, i.e.,

Komarigowda before the Assistant Commissioner

challenging the Survey that was conducted by ADLR

assigning new number 255 to petitioner and an

exparte order came to be passed by setting aside the

assigning of new survey number. Against which,

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy

Commissioner in R.A.No.9/1990-91, wherein, Deputy

Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant

Commissioner on 16.08.1991. Aggrieved by the

same, Ramu preferred a revision petition before the

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in R.P.No.168/1994,

which came to be allowed by order dated 11.01.1994

by setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner

and remanded the matter to Tahsildar for

consideration afresh. Aggrieved by the same,

Komarigowda preferred W.P.No.6489/1994 before this

Court. All these proceedings happened when parties

were also litigating before the Civil Courts. The said

writ petition came to be disposed of on 01.06.1999

making it clear that the report made by the Tahsildar

shall always be subject to the result of the suit that is

pending between the parties. That order was

challenged by Kormarigowda before the Division

Bench of this Court in W.A.No.6101/1999 which was

also disposed of on 12.06.2000 wherein the order

passed in the writ petition was modified holding that

the order of the Tahsildar stands undisturbed until the

Tahsildar comes to a conclusion on an enquiry, if the

same requires reconsideration.

19. It is submitted that Tahsildar subsequent to

direction of this Court in writ appeal, issued notices to

both the parties. After holding enquiry and receiving

durasti reports proceeded to pass final orders which

clearly shows that the lands of the petitioner and the

respondent Nos.4 to 8 (legal representatives of V.

Ramu) are two distinct with two different survey

numbers and he assigned Sy.no.287 to the property

of respondent Nos.4 to 8. Aggrieved by the said order,

Ramu preferred an appeal before the 2

respondent

in RA No.44/2001-2002 and he never prosecuted the

appeal and remained silent and it is reopened only in

the year 2011 by his legal representatives by filing an

application u/s 151 CPC.

20. It is submitted that to unsettle the already

settled matter late Ramu very clandestinely had on an

earlier occasion approached the Deputy Director of

Land Records and effects changes in the boundaries to

his newly assigned Sy.No.287 and succeeds in erasing

the existence of the Property of Komarigowda which

was given new Re Sy.No.255 abutting the Sy.No.287

on the ground of maintenance of the records. The

copy of the order passed by DDLR is dated

10.03.2002. This order was challenged by the

petitioner-Komarigowda in W.P.No.21010/2002. The

said petition came to be dismissed reserving liberty to

him to workout his remedy before the Civil Court.

Again the order passed in W.P.No.21010/2002 was

challenged by him in W.A.No.2952/2005, wherein the

Division Bench of this Court after detailed hearing set

aside the order passed by DDLR as without jurisdiction

and also observed that the Tahsildar after giving

opportunity to both the sides has given a report.

Subsequent to the order passed by Division Bench of

this Court, petitioner filed a Memo before the second

respondent Assistant Commissioner to close the case

in terms of the Division Bench Order. The Assistant

Commissioner after receipt of that memo gave a

direction to the Tahsildar and remanded the matter to

him. Accordingly, the Tahasildar fixed the Hudbus t

and closed the matter. That being the position, after

three years of passing of the order in Writ Appeal

No.2952/2005 by Division Bench of this Court, the

legal representatives of Ramu preferred SLP

No.140/2012 before the Apex Court which came to be

dismissed on 10.02.2012.

21. The crux of the case is that the order which

is challenged under this writ petition dated 10.9.2003

vide Annexure-A is issued by the respondent No.2

Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.44/2001-2002 in

the appeal preferred by Sri Ramu S/o

Venkataramanaiah being represented by his wife

Venkatamma against one Komarigowda and

Siddamma and respondent No.3 -Tahsildar.

22. The order of the Tahshildar dated

20.08.2001 bearing No.LND/CR/ 70/98-99 shows that

4 acres of the land was granted to him on 15.10.1980

and grant certificate was issued and he has grown

coconut and mango trees and respondent No.1 got

Sy.No.255 being rectified in his name. The said land

granted to the appellant Sri. Ramu and the order of

Tahshildar was challenged before the Assistant

Commissioner and against the order of the Assistant

Commissioner writ petition came to be filed.

23. These writ petitions have to be looked into

in the total context of the case as they are

interdependent. The parties claim that lands that

were granted to them are in Sy.No.148. As stated in

Annexure-I to W.P.No.14416/2011 the total extent of

land in Sy.No.148 is vast i.e., to the extent of 535

acres belonging to Government. It is necessary to

mention that earlier land to the extent of 9 acres 36

guntas was granted to Sri.Komarigowda by

Government Order dated 17.03.1971.

24. The claim and counter claim between

parties in respect of the extent and identity of land

has been fought in different level of proceedings

stated above before the Tahshildar, Assistant

Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal or this Court. As stated above, the

land that is located in Sy.No.148 and not in Sy.No.149

by the side of each other. At this juncture, it is

necessary to recapitulate the claim of V.Ramu who is

respondent in this case represented by his LRs.,

wherein, he applied for grant of 8 acres of land in Sy.

No.148 and however, four acres of land came to be

granted to him. Hence it is necessary to mention that

subsequently, his wife Venkatamma filed an

application for regularization of unauthorized

cultivation to the extent of four acres of land situated

in Sy.No.148. It is the subject matter of

W.P.No.44146/2011 and the same is still pending.

Under these circumstances and in the background of

above facts original suit in O.S.N.262/1989 was filed

by mother of Komarigowda - Siddamma claiming that

she has purchased the land from Komarigowda under

the Registered Sale deed dated 23.05.1988. The said

suit was filed before the learned Civil Judge,

Channapattana against V. Ramu represented by his

LRS, Venkatamma and others. At present both the

defendants are reported to be dead and succeeded by

their legal representatives.

25. The said suit came to be decreed

on 11-1-1997 against which regular appeal in RA

No.10/1997 and renumbered as 164/2012 was

preferred by Ramu and others. The said regular

appeal came to be dismissed by the learned first

appellate judge on 3-4-2013 and against which, the

defendants in the said suit have preferred RSA

No.819/2013 (listed along with writ petitions) which

will be taken up for disposal upon the completion of

the writ petitions to prevent overlapping and

confusion.

26. Among the two writ petitions stated above,

W.P.No.44146/2011 is preferred by Smt.Venkatamma

and W.P.No.10930/2012 is preferred by

Komarigowda.

27. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention

that, Deputy Director of Land Records in proceedings

No.CR/28-2001-2002 passed an order and the

substance of which is, confirmation of existence of

land in favour of Ramu to the extent of 4 acres in

survey No.287 at Kannamangala village and canceling

the mentioning of survey No.255 to the eastern side.

However, the said order was challenged by

Komarigowda in Writ Petition in W.P.No.21010/2002

and the said writ petition came to be dismissed on

15-6-2005 and matter was taken up in writ appeal in

W.A.No.2952/2005 and the Division Bench of this

court has allowed the same and set aside the order of

the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in writ

petition. Against which, Special Leave petition in SLP

140/2012 was preferred and that came to be

dismissed on 10-2-2012 on the point of delay.

28. On perusing what are stated above, the

following points are amply clear:

• Ramu was granted 4 acres of land in survey

No.148 and the same is renumbered as 287;

• The land granted in favour of Komarigowda is

renumbered as survey No.255:

• The existence of land either in survey No.148 or

survey No149 in favour of Komarigowda is denied

by Ramu;

29. Learned counsel Mr. K.R. Ramesh for

petitioner in W.P.No.44146/2011 would submit that

boundary to survey No.287 is wrongly interpreted. It

is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner

that the sketch annexed with Court Commissioner’s

report at page No.7 is not correct.

30. To a question posed regarding the

correctness of the sketch according to learned

counsel for petitioner Mr.K.R.Ramesh in

W.P.No.44146/2011, it was answered that the sketch

read with explanation is correct. Thus, it is admitted

by learned counsel appearing for Venkatamma.

31. Learned counsel Mr.T.N.Raghupathy

appearing for petitioner in second writ petition in

W.P.No.10930/2012 has disputed both the sketch and

Commissioner’s report.

32. On reading the Commissioner’s report, the

survey Nos. 255 and 287 are located and survey

No.255 is mentioned as abutting to survey No.287.

In other words, the portion marked as ‘QRSTQ’ is in

possession of Venkatamma. The measurement is

shown as ‘10 acres 12 guntas’ and the name of

appellant is shown. The portion marked as ‘ABCDA’ is

land in survey No.287 and portion marked as

‘MNOPM’ is the land which is renumbered as survey

No.255.

33. It is understandable that the parties are

targeting the road. The contention of the petitioner-

Venkatamma represented by her counsel

Mr.K.R.Ramesh is that, land to the west of Kanva

road is the land in survey No.287 belonging to Ramu.

But the sketch is admitted and it reflects in crystal

clear terms that land to the west of Kanva road is

‘Sy.No.255’. Surprisingly, this is opposed by learned

counsel Mr.T.N.Raghupathy appearing for

Komarigowda, petitioner in W.P.No.10930/2012 and

accepted by learned counsel Mr. K.R. Ramesh.

34. Learned counsel Mr.T.N.Raghupathy

submitted that as the grant letter is torn and in

dilapidated condition, he is filing the same in plastic

cover and submitted in the office. However, the typed

version of the xerox copy of the grant letter marked

as Ex.P2 before the trial court indicate that, an extent

of 9 acres 36 guntas of land, assessed at Rs.10 in

survey No.149 was granted. It is also mentioned as 4

hectares and at certain places, it is mentioned as 4

acres, totally it goes to show that 4 hectares and

grand total is confined at 9 acres 36 guntas (2 acres

19 guntas per hectare and 4 hectares is: 2.19 x 4 =

9.36).

35. Learned counsel Mr.K.R.Ramesh for

petitioner in W.P.No.44146/2011 submitted that the

boundary on the eastern side of survey No.287 is

wrongly mentioned. Further he submits that the

petitioner Venkatamma is in actual possession of land

to the extent of 4 acres in survey No.148. The report

of the Additional Director of Land Records supports his

contention. He would further submit that the

respondent Siddamma or persons claiming under her

are not having land in survey No.148. He has

submitted that it is only 4 acres that was granted to

Komarigowda and not more than that, that too, in

Sy.No.149. The identity of the properties are

different. The land of Komarigowda is to the east of

Kanva road. Land granted to Ramu is adjoining to the

said road. During the pendency of the suit, sketch has

been prepared overlapping the state of affairs by

mentioning the land of Komarigowda is to the west of

Kanva road and the same is not correct.

36. Mr.T.N.Raghupathy, learned counsel for

petitioner in W.P.No.10930/2012 submits that the

similar finding is reached by Tahsildar which was

concluded earlier by Deputy Director of Land Records

and that was challenged in the writ petition

No.21010/2002 which came to be dismissed. However

the writ appeal in W.A.No.2952/2002 was preferred

and that came to be allowed by setting aside the order

passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ

petition. His further contention is that, the original

suit filed by petitioner Siddamma in O.S.No.262/1989

for declaration of title and permanent injunction was

decreed and thereafter, regular appeal was preferred

by the defendant Venkatamma in R.A.No.164/2012

and that appeal came to be allowed and against

which, regular second appeal in RSA No.819/2013 was

preferred.

37. It was also submitted that if in the revenue

entries, the extent is mentioned as 4 acres instead of

4 hectares, the rights of Venkatamma cannot be

wiped out as the primary document, the grant letter

indicates that the land that was granted to her is 4

acres and that has been the subject matter in the

original suit and also in the regular appeal and now

pending in regular second appeal in RSA

No.819/2013.

38. It is also the contention of learned counsel

Mr. K.R. Ramesh and Mr. R.B. Sadasivappa appearing

for defendants in original suit that the plaintiff has to

make out his/her own case and cannot try to garner

evidence from the defendant’s case.

39. At the cost of repetition, it is necessary to

mention that the land at the time of allotment itself

was 4 acres specifically in Sy.No.148 to Ramu.

40. Mrs.T.H.Savitha, learned Government

Pleader submits the sketch filed by the Additional

Director of Land Records is proper. She further

submits that Ramu was granted 4 acres of land and

land granted to Komarigowda is 4 hectares in

Sy.No.149.

41. Insofar as the extent of land is concerned,

as per the grant letter issued to Komarigowda, it is

mentioned as 4 hectares which means 9 acres 36

guntas (1 Hectare = 2.19 x 4 = 9 acres 36 guntas).

The identity of the lands are stated to have been

different, but the grant of land in favour of

Komarigowda is not challenged by Ramu/

Venkatamma. At the same time, grant of land in

favour of Ramu is not challenged by Komarigowda.

Thus, veracity of the grants are not in question.

However, the location of the land is stated to be in Sy.

No.149 insofar as Komarigowda is concerned. In this

connection, the proceedings before the Deputy

Director of Land Records and the clarification issued

by the Tahasildar and the previous proceeding

indicate that Sy.No.149 granted in favour of

Komarigowda is no more exists and said land is

renumbered as survey No.255(may be by considering

the continuing survey numbers). The survey sketch is

admitted by learned counsel Mr.K.R. Ramesh for

petitioner in W.P.No.44146/2011 that new number

assigned to old survey No.148 granted to Ramu is

survey No.287. At this juncture, it is necessary to

make a mention that survey No. 255 is not claimed by

either Ramu or persons claiming under him. Likewise,

survey No.287 is not claimed by the writ petitioner

Siddamma as submitted by learned counsel

Mr.T.N.Raghupathy.

42. In this regard, series of proceedings and

the records as discussed above state that though

survey No.149 is mentioned in the grant letter,

topographical situation indicate that it is survey

No.148 and due to overlapping or non conduciveness

of allotting survey No.148, it was renumbered as

survey No.255 and the documents do not alter the

extent of land in that survey number.

43. Insofar as grant letter is concerned, it

confirms that land granted was ‘4 hectares’ and the

converted extent in acres also is indicated as ‘9 acres

36 guntas’.

44. Here, it is necessary to mention Section 61

and 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, which

read as under:

Section 61

61. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts

and bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.—(1) Save as

otherwise provided in this Act, or any other law for

the time being in force, a Revenue Court shall have

jurisdiction to determine, decide or dispose of, any

matter which it is, by or under this Act, empowered

to determine, decide or dispose of and no Civil Court

shall exercise jurisdiction as to any of such matters.

(2) Subject to the exceptions hereinafter

specified, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction as

to any of the following matters, namely:—

(a) claims against the Government relating to

any property appertaining to any office or for any

service whatsoever;

(b) objections.—

(i) to the amount or incidence of any assessment of

land revenue under this Act, or

(ii) to the mode of assessment or levy, or to the

principle on which such assessment or levy is fixed;

(iii) to the validity or effect of the notification of

survey or settlement;

proceedings for the realisation of land revenue or

other demands recoverable as arrears of land

revenue under this Act, or any other law for the time

being in force;

(d) claims to set aside, on the account of irregularity,

mistake, or any other ground, except fraud, sales for

arrears of land revenue;

(e) claims against Government.—

(i) to be entered in the revenue survey or settlement

records or any land record as liable for the revenue

or as superior holder, inferior holder, occupant,

mortgagee, landlord or tenant;

(ii) to have any entry made in any record of a

revenue survey or settlement; or

(iii) to have any such entry either omitted or

amended;

(f) the distribution of land or allotment of land

revenue on partition of any estate under this Act or

any other law for the time being in force;

(g) claims against the Government,—

(i) to hold land wholly or partly free from payment of

land revenue; or

(ii) to receive payments charged on or payable out of

the land revenue; or

(iii) to set aside any cess or rate payable under the

provisions of any law for the time being in force; or

(iv) respecting the occupation of waste or vacant

land belonging to Government;

(h) claims regarding boundaries fixed under this Act

or under any other law for the time being in force, or

to set aside any order passed by a competent officer

under any such law with regard to boundary marks

or survey marks:

Provided that if any person claims to hold land

wholly or partially exempt from payment of revenue

under.—

(a) any law for the time being in force expressly

creating an exemption not before existing in favour

of an individual, or of any class of persons, or

expressly confirming such an exemption on the

ground of its being shown in a public record, or of its

having existed for a specified term of years; or

(b) any written grant from the Government expressly

creating or confirming such exemption, -such claim

shall be cognizable by a Civil Court.

Section 133:

“133. Presumption regarding entries in the

records.—An entry in the Record of Rights and a

certified entry in the Register of Mutations [or in the

patta book] shall be presumed to be true until the

contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully

substituted therefor.”

45. There is difference between denial of grant

on the ground that it is fake or forged and denial on

the ground of rivalry. When the act of grant of latter is

not specifically challenged whether in favour of

Komarigowda or Ramu and the fact of grant of which

abundantly confirmed in the revenue proceedings, the

civil courts cannot adjudicate the legality and

correctness of the grant when the same is not

questioned. However, the grant of land in favour of

one party is not being questioned by other (which

applies to both of them) before the appropriate court.

46. Insofar as admitted facts are concerned,

what was granted in favour of Ramu is 04 acres of

land in survey No.148 of Kannamangala village.

Regard being had to the fact that he made application

for grant of 8 acres of land. Ramu did not pursue the

non granting of remaining 4 acres. But the wisdom of

his wife Venkatamma advised her to go for separate

grant of 4 acres of land. Thus, non-granting of the

remaining 4 acres is not challenged but the application

for grant of separate land came to be filed by his wife.

This court cannot discuss the ingredients of

unauthorised cultivation or the eligibility or

disqualification for getting the land granted to

litigating parties. If any grant application is made, it

is up to the concerned authority to look into the

matter and to dispose of as per law.

47. The question before this court would be the

documents filed by the parties in support of their

grounds and to justify them or to show non availability

of the land for others. It is in this connection, the

total extent of land in survey No.148 that is 535 acres

assumes significance. The petitioner-Komarigowda has

gone on record by stating that it was granted to him

and also 57 others. However, the grant of land to

others is not within the domain of this court. Earlier,

it was a Government land and the records furnished

and discussed above show that the said land fall in

survey No.148 and due to technical difficulty it was

renumbered as 255.

48. Now the question is, it is not the case that

the extent of land is shortened by petitioner in the

first writ petition/Venkatamma or the petitioner in the

second writ petition/Komarigowda. It cannot be

forgotten for a while that the sketch prepared by

ADLR pursuant to the order passed in RSA

No.819/2013 shows the location of survey No.287 and

255 and Kanva road and the said sketch is not

disputed by the petitioner -Venkatamma.

49. When a specific question is posed by this

Court to learned counsel Mr.K.R.Ramesh as to what

exactly petitioner means regarding the prayer as he

has averred and submitted in respect of land granted

to Ramu husband of Venkatamma, writ petitioner in

W.P.No.44146/2011 i.e., 4 acres of land in survey

No.148 and secondly, Venkatamma wife of Ramu

made application for grant of 4 acres of land in

survey No.148 and that is road and thirdly, 9 acres

36 guntas of land in survey No.149 renumbered as

255 of Kannamangala village, learned counsel submits

that the writ petitioner questions Annexure-X that

pertains to 9 acres 36 guntas of land stated to have

been granted to Komarigowda which was mentioned

as survey No.149 in the beginning and later

renumbered as survey No.255.

50. After submission made by the learned

counsel for the writ respondent in W.P No.44146/2011

to a question learned counsel for the petitioners

Mr.K.R.Ramesh submits that W.P.No.48100/2011

disposed of on 29.10.2013 was filed regarding

consideration of the application for confirmation of

regularization of unauthorized cultivation in respect of

4 acres of land by Smt. Venkatamma.

51. Under these circumstances, it is crystal clear

that the matter for regularization of unauthorized

cultivation is still pending before the revenue

authorities in respect of Smt.Venkatamma. The

petitioner wanted the disposal and a direction to be

given to consider the application in accordance with

law. The filing of writ petition No.48100/2011 itself

was made long after filing of WP.No.44146/2011.

52. It concludes that the present writ petition is

filed during the pendency of the earlier writ petition

and it was submitted that the said writ petition was

disposed on 29.10.2013. In this connection fairnes s

should have prevailed over the writ petitioners either

to aver about the pending W.P.No.48100/2011 or

about the disposal of the same instead of waiting for

the question to be posed by the Court. The inference

of the fact is that this writ petition is not in respect of

the 4 acres of land as claimed by Smt. Venkatamma.

53. In so far as para No.23 of the amended

writ petition filed on 23.4.2018 is as under.

“23) Hence feeling aggrieved by the acts

of the respondent authorities, in dodging the

matter unnecessarily, the petitioner having no

other alternative and efficacious remedy,

preferring the above writ petition on the

following amongst other grounds. The

petitioner has not filed any other writ petition

on the same cause of action before this court

nor any other proceedings before any other

forum.”

The extract of para is very much necessary for

the very reason that the writ petitioner

Smt. Venkatamma has averred in the writ petition in

the said para, that no other petition is pending.

54. The submission of learned counsel for

petitioner regarding the present writ petition is the

averments in the writ petition are not straight. The

writ petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents

to take decision and literally the grant of the land is

not challenged and the question is not 4 acres of land

granted to Ramu. Further, the writ petitioner has filed

application for regularization of the unauthorized

cultivation and the conduct of the petitioner is not

proper in presenting the facts in non-presenting the

required material particulars.

55. Insofar as, W.P.No.44146/2011 is

concerned, the prayer is as under:

“Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this

Hon’ble Court be pleased to,

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or anny other

appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the

2nd respondent to take appropriate decision in the

subject matter on the proposal placed by the 4th

respondent at Annexure-K, by taking into

consideration the minutes and the Mahazar drawn

by then Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore

Division at ANNEXURE-M & N and the report

obtained by this Hon’ble Court by appointing a

Court Commissioner in W.P.No.6489/1994 at

Annexure-P and conducting this sport inspection if

need be, forthwith, and

(b) grant such other relief/s as the Hon’ble

Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of

the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

56. The observation made in Writ Appeal

No.2952/2005 at para No.5 reads as under:

“5. With reference to the above rival legal

contentions urged by learned counsel on behalf of

the appellants and 7

respondent, we have

carefully examined the records in relation to the

grant of land in their favour and first appellant and

respondent and the order of the Tahsildar, the

order of the fifth respondent which is impugned in

the writ petition and the order of the learned single

judge with a view to find out whether the order

under appeal warrants interference in this appeal?.

The correction of eastern boundary of Sy.No.287 is

contrary to the order passed by the Tahsildar, who

has re-considered the claim and counter claim of

the parties pursuant to the direction issued in the

writ appeal. The Tahsildar has examined the land

grant records and the Survey Department recrods

with reference to the grants made in favour of first

appellant and 7

respondent and found that

appellant was granted 9 acres 36 guntas in

Sy.No.149 but he was in occupation of Sy.No.148.

Therefore, he requested change of spot for which

the recommendation was made to the Assistant

Commissioner. The same is accepted on the basis

of Government Order dated 20.3.1980 which

empowers the Tahsildar to take steps for change of

spot of the first appellant by himself and to

regularise the same. According, survey number

was amended as 148 instead of 149. Contrary to

the same, the ADLR passed the order dated

16.3.2002 cancelling the entry made as Sy.No.255

on the eastern side of Sy.No.287 and directed to

record it as Sy.No.148. The 7

respondent should

not have sought such correction of eastern side of

the property granted to him. This important aspect

has not been considered by the learned single

Judge as the 5

respondent has no jurisdiction to

exercise the so-called power under Rule 136 of the

KLR Rules and correct the survey number on the

eastern boundary of the land granted in favour of

the 7

respondent in relation to the boundary.

Such exercise of power by the fifth respondent is

not vested with him. The Tahsildar is competent to

demarcate the properties of the first appellant and

respondent as per the direction of this Court

issued in the order dated 12.6.2000 in the writ

appeal referred to supra. That has been done by

him after giving opportunity to the parties. If they

are aggrieved by the same, they should have

challenged that order. Instead of that, at the

instance of him 5

respondent passed the order

changing the survey number on the eastern side of

property as Sy.No.148 in exercise of his power to

correct the survey No. in place of survey No.255

that No. is written by oversight. The same is

contrary to the survey settlement records and the

order of Tahsildar. The said order is beyond his

jurisdiction. The same is done by fifth respondent

at the instance of the LRs of deceased 7

respondent to over come the order of Tahsildar

who has fixed the boundaries of the land granted in

favour of first appellant and deceased 7

respondent, after perusing the relevant land grant

and survey settlement records and considering the

claim and rival claim of the parties. The order of

respondent is not only contrary to the direction

issued by this Court in the writ appeal referred to

supra but also the records. There is deliberate

intention on the part of the deceased 7

respondent to knock off the property granted to the

first appellant by the land grant authority. That is

his plea, which is tenable in law in view of the

direction issued by this Court in its order in the writ

appeal referred to supra.”

57. In the circumstances of the case, the

proceedings before the revenue authorities are clear

that 9 acres 36 guntas (4 hectares) of land granted

was confirmed on perusal of the records maintained

by the revenue authorities. Further, learned counsel

for petitioner does not have any dispute regarding 4

acres of land in survey No.287 in favour of Ramu

now inherited by Venkatamma and her children.

Regard being had to the fact that Venkatamma is the

petitioner in W.P.No.44146/2011.

58. Insofar as Regular Second Appeal

No.819/2013 connected to RA No.164/2012 and

O.S.No.262/1989 is concerned, the substance of the

claim of the plaintiff-Siddamma wife of Siddaiah is

that she purchased the suit schedule property from

the previous owner Komarigowda under the registered

sale deed dated 22-5-1988 and ever since the date of

purchase, she is in possession and enjoyment of the

property. Her vendor was granted the said property

in proceeding bearing No.LND:CR:5:1970-71 on

23-7-1971. The said schedule property was

numbered as survey No.149 and it was also

renumbered as survey No.148 and after phoding the

said land was assigned with new survey No.255. It is

stated that her vendor was in possession of the

property earlier and later plaintiff purchased the

schedule property paying necessary tax and she has

planted 120 plants and has been cultivating the same

growing horsegram and she has also planted 15

coconut plants and sofaras defendants are concerned,

they have no right over the same.

59. Defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff

and the grant of land of 9 acres 36 guntas in survey

No.148. It is also stated that the defendants are in

possession of 8 acres of land, out of which 4 acres of

land was granted to Ramu as per Ex.P1 grant letter

and defendants also are also in possession of further 4

acres of land.

60. It is the claim and contention of the

defendants that plaintiff is trying to angle the property

of the defendants in survey No.148 of Kannamangala

village in the guise of schedule property, though in

fact, he does not have any land in survey No.148. He

further claims that no question of claiming survey

No.148 would arise when the defendants are in

possession and enjoyment of the land in survey

No.148 and also has constructed a residential house,

planted coconut and mango trees and in actual

possession of the same.

61. Based on the pleadings of the plaintiff and

contentions of the defendants, the learned trial judge

framed the following issues:

“

1. Whether the plaintiff prove that she

became owner of the suit schedule property

under registered Sale deed dtd. 23.5.1988?

2. Whether the further prove that she is in

possession of the suit schedule property from her

vendor D.Komarigowda got this property from

the Government under Land Grant certificate

dt.23.7.1971 under LND SR 5/70-71?

3. Does the prove the alleged obstructions

caused by the defendants?

4. Does the defendants prove the allegations

made in para 6 of the Written Statement?

5. Does they further prove that the suit is

based for non-joinder of necessary parties?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

declaration of the title and permanent injunction

as sought for?

7. To what order or Decree?”

62. The learned trial judge was accommodated

with the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of

the plaintiff and the defendants as under:

Plaintiff:

“ The plaintiff has got examined 3 witness as

P.Ws 1 to 3 and got marked 26 documents as

Ex.P.1 to 26 and also Ex.C.1 to 4.”

“Witness examined for Plaintiffs :

PW-1 – B.S.Siddaiah

PW-2-Komari Gowda

PW-3-D.T.Mudalgiriyappa

Defendants:

“The defendants have got examined 5 witnesses

as D.W.s 1 to 5 and got marked 36 documents

Ex.D.1 to 36.”

Witness examined for Defendants:

“DW-1-Ramu

DW- 2-C.Krishnappa

DW-3-Puttaswamy

DW-4-Raju

DW-5-Ninge Gowda.

Witness examined for Respondents in

R.A.164/2012

“R.W.1:D.Komare Gowda

R.W.2:Puttegowda

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiffs in

O.S.262/1989.

EX P1 Special Power of Attorney

EX P2 Grant Certificate

EX P3 Mahazar

EX P4 Sketch

EX P5 Letter

EX P6 Sketch

EX P7 Akarband

EX P8 Sketch

EX P9 Sale deed

EX P10 R.T.C.

EX P11 R.T.C.

EX P12 R.T.C.

EX P13 R.T.C.

EX P14 R.T.C.

EX P15 Tax paid Receipt

EX P16 Tax paid Receipt

EX P18 Tax paid Receipt

EX P19 Krishi Pass Book

EX P20 Patta

EX P21 Sketch

EX P22 Order of the Deputy

Commissioner.

EX P23 Order in W.P.20890/91

EX P24 Order in W.P.17425/92

EX P25 Sketch

EX P26 Order in W.P.6989/94

Exhibits marked on behalf of Appellants in

R.A.164/2012 .

EX P27 Certified copy of license

EX P28 Copy of approved plan

EX P29 Copy f Gas connection

EX P30 Copy of Electricity

Connection

EX P31 Copy of Demand Register

Extract.

EX P32 Certified copy of order in

W.P.No.48100/2011

EX P3 3 Certified copy of order

dated 27.02.2012

EX P34 Certified copy of order in

W.A.No.2952/2005

EX P35 Certified copy of village map

EX P36 Certified copy of sketch

EX P37 Certified copy of village map

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendants

Ex D1 Saguvali Chit

Ex D2 Mutation Register

Ex D3 Mutation Register

Ex D4 RTC

Ex D5 RTC

Ex D6 RTC

Ex D7 RTC

Ex D8 RTC

Ex D9 RTC

Ex D10 RTC

Ex D11 RTC

Ex D12 Mutation Register

Ex D13 Receipt

Ex D14 Borewell Receipt

Ex D15 Tax paid receipt

Ex D16 Tax paid receipt

Ex D17 Tax paid receipt

Ex D18 Gun purchase receipt

Ex D19 License

Ex D20 Order of the Assistant

Commissioner

Ex D21 Order of the Appellate

Authority

Ex D22 Order in Writ Petition

Ex D23 Enquiry Report of the

Assistant Commissioner

Ex D24 Mahazar by the Assistant

Commissioner

Ex D25 Patta

Ex D26 RTC

Ex D27 RTC

Ex D28 Form No.2 Extract

Ex D29 Receipt

Ex D31 Photo

Ex D32 Photo

Ex D34 Endorsement

Ex D35 C.C.of the Plaint

Ex D36 R.T.C.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondents

in R.A.164/2012

EX R37 Certified copy of the Will

EX R38 Certified copy of the Death

Certificate.

EX R40 Certified copy of order in

W.P.No.6849/1994

EX R41 Certified order in W.A.No.

6101/1999.

EX R42 Certified copy of report of

Tahsildar

EX R43 Certified copy of proceedings

of A.D.L.R.

EX R44 Certified copy of the order in

W.P. 21010/2002

EX R45 Certified copy of the order

in W.A.No.2952/2005

EX R46 Copy of order sheet in S.L.P.

Exhibits marked for Commissioner

Ex.C1 Reply to Notice

Ex.C2 Reply Notice

Ex.C3 Undertaking

Ex.C4 Sketch.”

63. Learned trial Judge upon conclusion of the

trial and after hearing the parties, decreed the suit of

the plaintiff for the relief of title and injunction.

Against the said Judgment and decree, regular appea l

No.10/1997(New No.164/2012) was preferred by the

defendants which came to be allowed and the matter

was remanded on 19-4-1997. The said order was

challenged in MSA No.133/1997 by the plaintiffs and

that was allowed by this Court on 23-6-1998 and

matter was remanded to the first appellate court.

After the remand, the appeal was re-numbered as

R.A.No.164/2012 and both the plaintiffs and

defendants filed applications to adduce additional

evidence under order 41 Rule 27 CPC and led the

evidence, by filing documents at Exs.D27 to D35 and

the plaintiff got examined RW1 and 2 and got marked

Exs.P37 to 45.

64. Thereafter, the learned first appellate judge

dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants on

3-4-2013 against which, defendants have preferred

the present regular second appeal.

65. This court admitted the appeal on

19-9-2013 to examine the following substantial

questions of law:

“

1. Whether the observation of the trial court

that plaintiff is the owner of the property and

that she is in possession in the absence of any

material documents is justified?

“2

. Whether the trial court failed to note that

the Grant Certificate is manipulated as the

Tahasildar had no power to grant 4 hectares of

land (9 acres 36 guntas) as his power was

limited to 2 hectares of dry land i.e. about 4

acres an din the RTC also it is reflected as 4

acres and not 4 hectares?

“3. Whether the Courts below are justified in

holding that the respondent is in possession of

the land when boundary disputes are pending

and request for regularization of unauthorized

cultivation has not yet been decided by the

competent authority?

“

4. Whether the First Appellate Court is

justified in ignoring the additional evidence

recorded by it while passing the impugned

judgment on the ground that SLP is dismissed

but the dismissal of SLP has no relevancy on the

facts of the case?

“5. Whether the First Appellate Court has

failed to consider the fact that the order passed

by the Tahasildar with regard to hadbasth is set

aside by the appellate court i.e. Assistant

Commissioner and thus it did not confer nay right

on the party concerned?

The following additional substantial question of

law arises for consideration:

Whether when the application made for grant

before the concerned authority on the revenue

side is partly allowed, is it open for the party or

persons claiming under the grantee who do not

challenge the said grant order to agitate

independently?

66. Defendant No.2 Venkatamma is the wife of

defendant No.1 Ramu. Learned counsel

Mr.R.B.Sadasivappa appearing for

appellants/defendants would submit that the legal

documents and revenue entries reflect the grant of

land of 4 acres in favour of Ramu and he was in

possession of another 4 acres of land, totally, 8 acres

of land in survey No.148. Learned counsel would

further submit that assigning new number to survey

No.148 to the extent of 9 acres 36 guntas in favour of

plaintiff does not arise for the very reason that she

had no rights over the land in survey No.148.

Learned counsel would further submit that the grant

order initially claimed by the plaintiff is stated to be in

survey No.149 and as such, there was no question of

claiming land in survey No.148 of Kannamangala

village and the defendants are in possession and

enjoyment of the granted land and also in possession

of the further 4 acres of land and contends that the

plaintiff’s intentions are not good and the trial judge

and the first appellate judge did not appreciate and

reappreciate the evidence properly and did not

understand the impact of the revenue documents and

the claim of the plaintiff being in non consonance of

the grant letter. Learned counsel also referred th e

report of the Deputy Commissioner.

67. Learned counsel Mr. T.N.Raghupathy for

plaintiff/Respondent-Siddamma would submit that the

land in survey No.148 that was granted to

Komarigowda was mentioned as survey No.149, but

actually the said land is situated at survey No.148.

Thus, after proper conclusion, legally, the revenue

authorities have assigned the survey No.148 in place

of 149. It is also submitted that the report submitted

by the Deputy Commissioner was set aside by this

Court in W.P.No.17425/1992 on 19-11-1992 as by

that time, the matter was pending before the

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the revision. It is also

submitted that the writ petition and its consequential

writ appeals confirm the right, title, interest and

possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property.

Learned counsel further submits that the judgment in

writ appeal Nos.2952/2005 and 6101/1999 throw light

on the bone of contentions of the parties and the

rights available to them. Thus, both the parties claim

that each of them is in possession and enjoyment of

the schedule property thereby one denying the

contentions and pleadings of the other.

68. Insofar as the writ petition filed by

Smt.Venkatamma is concerned, I have mentioned in

detail regarding the proceedings and aspects of

Sy.No.287 (Old Sy.No.148) with reference to

renumbering.

69. The prayer of the petitioner in

W.P.No.44146/2011 is that, the direction is sought to

be issued to respondent No.2 as per the proposal put

by respondent No.4 at Annexure-X considering

minutes and Mahazar. (It is erroneously typed as

Annexure-S). It is mentioned at the cost of repetition

that Sy.No.148 is stated to have contained 535 acres

and 21 guntas as per Annexure-A filed by the

petitioner. At this stage, it is abundantly clear that

land granted to Sri.V.Ramu in Sy.No.148 to the extent

of 4 acres is not disputed.

70. In so far as the extent of land sought by

Sri.V. Ramu was 8 acres but the grant was made vide

Annexure-C to the extent of 4 acres which suggests

that the application was found reserved only for 4

acres and in so far as Annexure-Y is concerned it is

the application submitted by Smt.Venkatamma on

10.11.2011, which is clearly more than 30 years after

the grant of 4 acres.

71. In the said context and circumstances of the

case, the parties have contended that the civil suit

also has reached the stage of judgment and that the

judgment is delivered and matter is pending in regular

second appeal. Thus, as the said regular second

appeal is also coming for disposal before this Court,

matter deserves to be disposed of in terms of the

findings to be recorded in the said RSA.No.819/2013.

72. Accordingly writ petition No.44146/2011 is

liable to be disposed of subject to the result of regular

second appeal No.819/2013.

73. Insofar as writ petition No.10930/2012

filed by Komarigowda is concerned, relief sought is as

mentioned above. Now the order passed by

respondent No.2 is sought to be set aside as per

Annexure-A which is the order of the Assistant

Commissioner dated 27-02-2012 regarding remand in

the light of the similar order passed by the Deput y

Director of Land Records earlier dated 6-9-2018 and

the further proceedings subsequent to the sale. This

writ petition also is liable to be disposed of subject to

the result of the regular second appeal.

Reasoning in Regular Second Appeal:

74. The parties have faced litigation in several

proceedings viz., in writ petition No.44146/2011 filed

by Venkatamma, in writ petition No.10930/2012 filed

by Komarigowda.

75. In the regular second appeal, learned

counsel for appellants/defendants has filed three

applications under order 41 Rule 27 CPC on 17-7-

2014, 9-7-2017 and 22-6-2018 which are allowed.

76. Along with I.A. filed on 17-7-2014, the

following documents are produced:

1. Certified copy of the order sheet in

W.P.No.6489/`994;

2. Certified copy of the Mahazar drawn by the

Court Commissioner appointed in

W.P.6489/1994;

3. Copy of the report of Court Commissioner

ADLR Ramanagara appointed in

W.P.No.6489/1994;

4. Copy of the sale deed dated 17-10-1987

executed by Smt. Leelavathi w/o. Sri. Byrappa

in favour of Sri.C.Krishnappa s/o.late Sri.

Kempegowda;

5. Copy of the sale deed dated 19-7-1991

executed by Sri. T. Krishna s/o. Late Sri.

Thimmaiah in favour of Sri. C.Krishnappa s/o.

late Sri. Kempegwoda.

77. Along with I.A.No.2/2017 the documents

produced are as under:

(1) Paper publication of the notification

published in Vijaya Karnataka, Kannada Edition,

newspaper dated 1-2-2017;

(2) Sketch indicating the Sy.No.255 of

Kannamangala village, Channapattana Tluk,

Ramanagara District prepared by PWD and approved

by Special Land Acquisition Officer, NH 275

Ramanagara;

(3) Kannamangala village Map of

Channapattana Taluk, Ramanagara District.

78. Insofar as I.A.No.2/2018 is concerned, the

documents produced along with it are:

1. Copy of the complaint dated 8-2-2018

filed by Sri. Kantharaju with M.K. Doddi Police

Station along with FIR in Crime No.8/2018

dated 8-2-2018;

2. Copy of the spot mahazar and also

PF, seizure mahazar made by the police in the

said Crime No.8/2018.

3. Photographs.

79. The above said documents are perused and

considered.

80. Basically, O.S.No..262/1989 was filed by

Siddamma and that came to be decreed on

11-01-1997 and the defendants preferred an appeal in

R.A.No.10/1997 that came to be dismissed on

3-4-2013 it is against the said judgment and decree of

concurrent finding, the present appeal is preferred by

Venkatamma. The schedule as mentioned in the plaint

is as under:

Dry land bearing Survey No.255 measuring 9.36

acres, assessed at 14.56 situate at Kannamangala

village, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, bounded

on East by: Kanva Road, West by:Government

Gudde, North by: Gomala land and south by:

Boundary of Cholamaranahlli (gadi).

81. As stated above, the original application for

grant made by Ramu @ Miltry Ramu was for 8 acres

of land in survey No.148 as against his claim, 4 acres

were granted which goes to shows that remaining 4

acres was rejected. As per the proceedings stated

above, it is clear that non granting of remaining 4

acres was not questioned either by Ramu during his

life time or by his wife Venkatamma. Per contra,

another application for 4 acres of land was filed by

Venkatamma for adjudication and the said application

is still pending. It becomes further abundantly clear by

the submission made by learned counsel for

appellants that the writ petition was filed by

Venkatamma wherein, the said Venkatamma has

sought for suitable direction for considering her

application and the said writ petition came to be

disposed of with a direction to the concerned

authorities to consider the application. By this, it

becomes abundantly clear that the status of

Venkatamma insofar as next 4 acres of land in survey

No.148 is in the stage of applying for grant or

regularization and this court cannot sit as a platform

for consolidating evidence to pre judge the merits of

the application and the qualification of the applicant.

More particularly, it becomes further clear that 4 acres

that was granted to Ramu is not questioned nor

disputed and there is no further proceedings from the

year 1971 and we are in the year 2021 which is about

50 years back. The extent of land granted to

Komarigowda is 4 Hectares or 9 acres 36 guntas as

per Ex.P2. The respondents’ case is that, they are in

possession of 8 acres of land and that Komarigowda is

claiming that 8 acres of land in survey No.148 which

includes the land granted to Ramu.

82. Moreover when one claims a grant till it is

granted grantee does not get ownership over the land.

83. Here the relevant point is, the land granted

to Ramu @ Militry Ramu is 4 acres in survey No.148.

The total extent of land in survey No.148 as admitted

by appellants is about 535 acres 21 guntas. The RTC

of the said survey number is filed by the learned

counsel for petitioner in the writ petition which is also

available for perusal before this court.

84. Now insofar as claim of overlapping of the

land of Ramu @ Militry Ramu or Venkatamma is not

acceptable for the very reason that grant of land to

Komarigowda in the year 1971 is ‘4 hectares’ and the

survey Number mentioned therein was 149 to the

extent of ‘4 hectares’ and also clarified it as ‘9 acres

36 guntas’. In this connection, it was contended b y

learned counsel for appellants that 4 acres of land has

been mis-represented as 4 hectares. The extent

mentioned is also clarified in terms of acres in the

grant letter Ex.P2. Moreover, the said fact of grant has

come under the scanner of different revenue

authorities in the respective proceedings between the

parties and there is no complaint by revenue

authorities regarding the fraud or misdeed in

converting acres into hectares. In the context, the

primary letter i.e. grant order (saguvali chit) Ex.P2

has to be looked as mother document. Survey No.148

and 149 though claimed as adjoining numbers, the

actual location of land was stated to be in survey

No.148 and not in Sy.No.149 that is already explained

in the discussion made above. It is also seen that as

it is not conducive for holding the survey No.148 for 9

acres 36 guntas of land, different survey number in

the form of survey No.255 was allotted. The sketch

showing the land granted in favour of both Ramu @

Militry Ramu and Komarigowda are mentioned there in

the form of sketch which is as under:

ABCDA UÀÄgÀÄw¤AzÀ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀªÀÅ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 287

DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

MNOPM UÀÄgÀÄw¤AzÀ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀªÀÅ 1972 gÀ°è zÀÄgÀ¹ÛAiÀiÁzÀAvÉ

¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 255 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

BCFEB UÀÄgÀÄw¤AzÀ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀªÀÅ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï, ZÀ£Àß¥ÀlÖt gÀªÀgÀ

J¯ïJ£ïr/¹Dgï/70/98-99 ¢£ÁAPÀ 20-8-2001gÀ DzÉÃ±Àz ÀAvÉ

ªÀÄgÀÄzÀÄgÀ¹ÛAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 255 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

QRSTQ F aºÉß¬ÄAzÀ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀÅ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ

ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ

d«ÄÃ£ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ «¹ÛÃtð10-12J-UÀÄA EgÀÄvÀ ÛzÉ.

287

255

F P

M N

UÁæªÀÄ ZÉÆÃ¼ÀªÀiÁgÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÀr

¯Á.¸À.£ÀA. 148 ¯Á.¸À.£ÀA. 149

“PÀ£ÁðlPÀ WÀ£À GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉÊ:Dgï.J¸ï.J.819/2013 gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ

ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÀAiÀiÁj¸À¯ÁzÀ £ÀPÉë

”

UÁæªÀÄ: PÀ£ÀßªÀÄAUÀ®

NORTH

SCALE 1 :3960

5. F aºÉß¬ÄAzÀ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀÅ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ

ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ

¸Áé¢üÃ£Á£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ£ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

6. F aºÉß¬ÄAzÀ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀté-PÉAUÀ¯ï gÀ¸É ÛAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

PÉÆÃmïðPÀ«ÄµÀ£Àgï

¨sÀÆzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ

gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀf¯Éè, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ."

85. The observation of the surveyor who is the

officer appointed by the Court to execute the

commission warrant in accordance with the

instructions given to him, and there was no

instructions for the Commissioner to measure the

extent of land and it was not regarding the extent of

land and the survey number and boundaries. This was

objected by learned counsel for plaintiff. However

learned counsel for defendants did not object for the

same. In the said document, survey No.149 is not

mentioned as it was felt irrelevant in the

circumstances of the case. Survey No.148 in which

Ramu @ Miltry Ramu was granted 4 acres of land and

it is mentioned as survey No.287 and land that was

granted to Komarigowda is mentioned as Sy.No.255

and Kanva road is mentioned to the east of survey

No.255. In the present circumstances of the case, the

mentioning of possession of land at 10 acres 12

guntas by Venkatamma has no significance insofar as

appeal is concerned. It is the very urging of the

counsel for Venkatamma that her husband was

granted 4 acres of land in survey No.148. As I have

stated above, it is not the case of continuing the

proceedings of land for non granting of totally 8 acres

of land. The revenue authorities have granted 4 acres

of land and that is the case of the defendants. It is not

for this court to hold her entitlement or otherwise for

the grant of remaining land which is absolutely within

the domain of the revenue authorities.

86. In this connection, following provision of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is worth to be

mentioned, which reads as under:

“ 61. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts

and bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.—(1)

Save as otherwise provided in this Act, or any

other law for the time being in force, a

Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction to

determine, decide or dispose of, any matter

which it is, by or under this Act, 482 Land

Revenue [1964: KAR. ACT 12 empowered to

determine, decide or dispose of and no Civil

Court shall exercise jurisdiction as to any of

such matters. (2) Subject to the exceptions

hereinafter specified, no Civil Court shall

exercise jurisdiction as to any of the following

matters, namely:— (a) claims against the

Government relating to any property

appertaining to any office or for any service

whatsoever; (b) objections,— (i) to the

amount or incidence of any assessment of

land revenue under this Act, or (ii) to the

mode of assessment or levy, or to the

principle on which such assessment or levy is

fixed, or (iii) to the validity or effect of the

notification of survey or settlement; (c)

claims connected with or arising out of any

proceedings for the realisation of land

revenue or other demands recoverable as

arrears of land revenue under this Act, or any

other law for the time being in force; (d)

claims to set aside, on account of irregularity,

mistake, or any other ground, except fraud,

sales for arrears of land revenue; (e) claims

against the Government,— (i) to be entered

in the revenue survey or settlement records

or any land record as liable for the revenue or

as superior holder, inferior holder, occupant,

mortgagee, landlord or tenant; (ii) to have

any entry made in any record of a revenue

survey or settlement, or (iii) to have any

such entry either omitted or amended; (f) the

distribution of land or allotment of land

revenue on partition of any estate under this

Act or any other law for the time being in

force; (g) claims against the Government,—

(i) to hold land wholly or partly free from

payment of land revenue; or (ii) to receive

payments charged on or payable out of the

land revenue; or (iii) to set aside any cess or

rate payable under the provisions of any law

for the time being in force; or (iv) respecting

the occupation of waste or vacant land

belonging to Government; (h) claims

regarding boundaries fixed under this Act or

under any other law for the time being in

force, or to set aside any order passed by a

competent officer under any such law with

regard to boundary marks or survey marks:

Provided that if any person claims to hold

land wholly or partially exempt from payment

of revenue under,— (a) any law for the time

being in force expressly creating an

exemption not before existing in favour of an

individual, or of any class of persons, or

expressly confirming such an exemption on

the ground of its being 1964: KAR. ACT 12]

Land Revenue 483 shown in a public record,

or of its having existed for a specified term of

years, or (b) any written grant from the

Government expressly creating or confirming

such exemption, -such claim shall be

cognizable by a Civil Court.”

87. The surveyor or the Commissioner is there

to execute the warrant and he has not appointed for

making recommendations. It is necessary to mention

that in the sketch, land in survey No.287 is shown in

the dotted area. But in the notes under the said

sketch, the dotted area is shown as land in possession

of the persons other than the appellants and

respondent, which goes to show that dotted portion is

not in possession of the plaintiff or the defendants.

Thus, despite the description of the location of the

land was in survey Nos.287 and 255, the plaintiff

cannot claim both survey Nos.149 and 148. At the

same time defendants cannot claim survey No.148

and 287 as his final picture is available in surve y

No.255 irrespective of the mentioning therein.

88. In the report, the Surveyor or Deputy

Director of Land Records has mentioned that after

restructuring of survey numbers, land in survey No.

255 is shown as ‘BCFEB’ to the west of Kanva road to

that extent the clarification is clear that survey No.255

of the plaintiff’s is to the west of Kanva road. In other-

words to the east of survey No.255 Kengal Kanva

road is situated.

89. Through out the proceedings there was no

specific observation by the trial court or appellate

court regarding the extent of land. Regard being had

to the fact that 4 acres of land originally granted to

Ramu is not disputed. Now the litigation appears to

have been gone on the notion that Venkatamma is

claiming under Ramu @ Militry Ramu whatever was

granted to Militry Ramu would be inherited by

appellant but not any extra land.

90. When the admitted records by appellants

and also by respondent show that the total extent of

land was 4 acres besides the basic claim and the grant

of 4 acres was not questioned. It is the claim of

Venkatamma that she is claiming grant of another 4

acres of land. However, for the purpose of clarity it is

not specifically explained whether she is claiming

under Ramu @ Miltry Ramu or independently. In case

of the former, it has been adjudicated already. In this

connection, Siddamma is stated to be the natural

mother of Komarigowda and propriety of execution of

sale deed by Komarigowda-son in favour of his mother

was questioned. In the circumstances, the documents

marked in the form of exhibits, the proceedings before

this court and the revenue authorities concluded t o

the effect that 9 acres 36 guntas of land or 4 hectares

was granted to the plaintiff’s son is established.

91. In this connection, that will not cause any

prejudice to the case of the plaintiff as the mother of

Komarigowda claimed only what was granted to

Komarigowda. If there was extra or different kind of

land, that should have been the matter for

discussion. There is no need to attributing other

meaning to the same.

92. In the overall context and circumstances of

the case, I find the Judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.262/1989 by the learned trial Judge on

31-1-1997 and the Judgment and decree in R.A.No.

164/2012 passed by learned appellate judge on

3-4-2013 do not call for interference. The substantial

questions of law raised in the appeal are answered

accordingly and appeal is liable to be dismissed.

93. For the forgoing reasons, RSA No.819/2013

is hereby dismissed and the Judgment and decree

passed by the trial court and the first appellate court

are confirmed. No orders as to costs.

It is necessary to mention that whenever the

proceedings are pending before the revenue

authorities to consider the claim of regularization of

unauthorised occupation, it is not upto the court to

directly or indirectly issue direction to the revenue

authorities to pass a particular order.

Writ petition No.44146/2011 filed by

Venkatamma and W.P.No.10930/2012 filed by

Komarigowda are disposed of in accordance with the

observations made above.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv/tsn*/akv

Reference cases

Description

Legal Notes

Add a Note....