Smt. Kamalavva W/O … vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCHAT
DI-IARWAD. 7 

DATED TI-HS THE 4% DAY OF JANUARY 20;e--   A'  

PRESENT 'V
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE Iqfiix/:1A1\':,rt:;\1A;'A:--i»:": 
AND;         
THE HON'BLE MR.  '
' Writ A:3:3ee{i~.l_\Io. eA3'4'r.'§f :§[Qog  V'

Between:
1. Smt.Kama1avva _  _  _, 
W / 0 Hanumanta3gou£da_VPati1 1 

Age 60 years  ' _

Occ: Househ01d.V.w§3_rk

At Bankapur»   -1 :11; 

Tq. Shiggaon -- 5'8?LL_-205, A  .
District Have]:-i'-- 58: .1-10  _  

2. SriMa11anag5uda.V VV . A H

S / o Hanumantageuda.'-Patil '

_ Age 35_3}_*ears ' V.

 O~:'.sf:: Agricuiture

KAtB'ar31kap_u17. _ 
'1'--q_. Shiggaon A--,58_1"2O5

District Ha*.ve'1'.i _-- -58.1 110

 "Bf Sn' Sar"zgangoud--a

S/0 Hanumantagouda Patil

' '  I '  32 years "

 'Qee:AAgraicu1ture
';At'Ban.kapur
 Shiggaon ~ 581 205

 "-Dui$t_1fict Haveri -- 581 110

53,



IO

4. Sri Ramanagoud
S/0 I-Ianumantagouda Patil
Age 30 years
Occ: Agriculture
At Bankapur
Tq. Shiggaon -- 581 205
District I-Iaveri -- 581 1 10   ._

5. Srnt. Chennavva
W / o Gurupadappa Kudal
Age 28 years
Occupancy Rights
Household work
At Chendapur
Tq. Shiggaon -- 581 205
District I-Iaveri -- 581 110

6. Smt. Paravva _    V     :
W/0 Siddappa new  . .     " 
Age 24 years  i .V  V      '
Occ: Household '
At Mattoo  """   ; "*1; 
Tq. Shiggaion -- _58'17._2Q57, 'V .V _ '
District Haveri -- 581"1.:'ii0i   h .. Appellants

(By Srnt. Push}5aVatl>.ia7_M.fi'ongadi, Advocate for M/s
R.K.I-I.Associates, Akivocates) V

Arid} 

1. The i:)e}:iuety:"C'(o1:{I11_issioner
Havcri; -Disti. 'E-_I'_aVe'1:i'-- 581 110

712. The Assistahi: Commissioner

 ~ .. «.Savanur Sub1Division

H " " V .s'avanu.; -- 581 118

' «.D'is'tr.iVct Haveri -- 581 110

 'i?ahsildar
..Sh-iggaon Taluk

(ff



Shiggaon -- 581 205

4. Sri Veerabhadragouda
S / o Fakkiragouda Patil
Age: 56 years
Occ: Service
At Bankapur   
Tq. Shiggaon »-« 581 205 : '
Dist. Haveri ---- 581 110

5. Sri Jayavantgouda

S /o Fakkiragouda Patil

Age: 52 years

Occ: Service

At Bankapur

Tq. Shiggaon----581 205   :   

District Haveri «-« 581,110  _    l  Ifipflespondents

This writ appeal' /is  of the.lV(a'1'hataka High Court
Act praying to 5c'all'_~.. for---1'_;eco_1ds"~~. oi} 't_he_ Tile of the Deputy
Commissioner, I-Iavxerii  Case I\lo.R"l'S/ R] CR-40/ 2007-2008 and
etc.  . . ' .      

This appeal csohiih:'g.p4Vonpr'e1iminaIy hearing this day, _

Manjunath, J.,'de1'iVerec1_th.¢vfoilowirig: ..
"  «V  Jfibéhqenr
'V V'  Heaa§'t1i1e. leva.xrnedHco'iifisel for the appellants and the learned

Gove1*:_1r'ne_1iL for respondents--1 to 3.

'V 2. The legality and correctness of the order passed in Writ

.1§§etit:1o.r1'A?€0,.'65VVO44 of 2009 dated 10.09.2009 is callecl in question

 this The appellants were the Writ petitioners. It appears



they filed an application for grant of occupancy rights before the
Land Tribunal, Shiggaon. The said application is pending

consideration. In the meanwhile, the contesting respondent

challenged the revenue entries made in the name of  

by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commi.ssVionert::which"

appeal came to be dismissed against which a _rev«ision*'petition eras A'

filed before the Deputy Commissioner, iielpaveri E)is.triicti'wlj1ich 

revision is allowed stating that anyientry made' i'n.ithe7_revenue
records would be subject to the=~..resu'ltmoifetlriepiiliélecisioniiofiithe Land
Tribunal. Challenging the orders'.  'Commissioner,

Haveri, the appellants =iiere.iii filed the aicieeaia ifvrit petition which

has been dis.miS$t§({~   Single Judge on the ground
that the entryifinpade  records will not inure to the
benefit of  appeilllantsiior   respondent as the said entries
wiouléipbe  t"o..the iresiultiof the decision of the Land Tribunal.
  present appeal is filed.

  .

ha.ve=heard learned counsel for the appellants ‘and the

tipiearned iipdovernment Advocate for respondents–1 to 3. We are also

.ii’iii_Qf__’tb;efopinion that the learned Single Judge is justified in

591/

dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the entries znade in

the revenue records would be subject to the outco:n”e–V:.:of.”‘the

decision of the Land Tribunal. Admittedly the_.A4″é–1airn’.v:.ofl&

appellants are pending before the Land..».’.Fribunal’,’V’

ultimately the appellants succeed before Land

revenue authorities are bound to*-makeA’v-neuessla_ry{._correCtionsV.’

based on the order to be passed by__l:tl:e Land Trihunalfior by the
Appellate Authority. In the_..e’irou_rnsta.nc«epsl,Aiwe do not see any
reasons to interfere with the-orderVpaspse’d’Y_’oj”.:tlie learned Single

Judge. According_lyj; th{e’arppe’al

%;nlWp:uDGE

sal-

….. -4 .