WP 25719/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 25'm DAY OF NoVEMEER,..'2e':1_§'..' " EEEORE _ V' " H THE HONBLE w.p.No.25719/2009 - * K BETWEEN: V V 'V Sri Thimma Boyee @ Pi11a~.Boyee','"' Since deceased by his L. :Lmd._ E " adopted son Sri Devaraj, ' ' ' aged 27 years, A ' » adopted son of late Thirrfigma B_ Qy€'e"~.,"'.. @ Pilla Boyee, ' V _ V V A R/ at HakkirnéinVehéiné;ha11i\?-U.,_ V _ ._ K.R.Pe1; Taluk, N.I_a:_1dy:;: 13.:s'u51c:." PETITIONER (By Sn :$'.sab'ha§h, A3}. fer Sri Puttasiddap15a.':A§lvr»] A_E2:__ * Deputy Coihlnissioner, ' ,M"and3i'a District, ' Ma.1'_1dya; ' 2,.' AssL.--C_0Ihmissioner, Pandafvaptxra Sub~Divisior1, Pandeivapura. ' The Tshsildar, _ xK.R'.PetTa1uk, K.R.Pet. V' 2i'."TSri Putta Boyee, Aged 43 years, S / 0 Thimma Boyee, WP 25? 19/2009 5. Sri Raja Boyee, Aged 40 years, S / o Thirnma Boyce, Respondents 4 «St 5 are
R/o Hakkirnanchanahalli,
Seelanere Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, 5 ” = .
Mandya District. « ,_..’–4RESP(_)I*’IDEN’E’S
[By Sri E.S.Indiresh, I-ICGP for R1-3] i it
This writ petition is filed 227 of t.he
Constitution of India, praying _to_”quash the irnpugned order
dated 26.12.2000 in ‘ ‘dispute _ NQ.53’5_/98-99 passed by
respondent No.3 vide Ar1nexurea_C1and”et’t:_ i
This petitiorrpoming Hearing, this day,
the Court madethet’o11ow1ng:…~” ‘ ” ‘
1. Order ._ passed by the Deputy
Cornmissioner. “MandAyab Vfiistrict, Mandya, dismissing the
._revision petition fiiectby the petitioners herein under Section
ofV”thve:fl’Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and
confirrning orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
‘.Pand.avapt1ra’ Sub- Division, Pandavapura and Tahsildar,
it V’ Taluk, K.R.Pet, is called in question in this writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the
.~ entries in the revenue records recorded in the name of
respondent Nos.4 & 5 in respect of Sy. No.28, Block No.1
fir
WP 25719/2009
3
situated at Hakkimanehanahalli Village, K.R.Pet Taluk. The
case of the petitioner is that 4 acres of land eomprised~–.in the
said survey number has been granted in the vnampefof “his
adoptive father Thimma Boyee @ Pilla Boyee, wh:e_reajsV.thlel
as put forward by the contesting respondent l\los,.4jl&.5 b
that the grant was made in the narnefof. their _..nat.ural–jf’atfherp
Thimma Boyee @ Pilla Boyee. V
3. The Tahsildar, the.__ Assitstant: Co.mmissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner halvehei-dwlthat: Boyee @ Pilla
respondent l\Alosl§%§ ‘aeflprima facie shown before them by
produeingdo’Cuments~l. and—..th’erefore, the entries made in favour
of respondent “N.os;4 .v& the revenue records after the death
if of Boyee @ lPl’l’lafBoyee could not be interfered with.
tfovunsel appearing for the petitioner submits
V .that Boyee @ Pilla Boyee was not the father of
r%e.»:pao_nder1t Nos.4 8:5, but was the adoptive father of petitioner
In support of the said contention, petitioner has relied
upon several documents in this writ petition. The contention of
” the learned Counsel is that the orders passed by the revenue
authorities are vitlated, as, if only these documents had been
A”
WP 25719/2009
4
taken note of, they would not have come to the conclusion that
Thimma Boyee @ Pilla Boyee was the father of respondent Nos.4
8:5.
5. Counsel appearing for the respondents st.ronglyi.su.pports
the concurrent findings recorded by the revenue .
6. Having heard the learned Cou_nsel__for and
careful perusal of the materials on re’c:or(.l_;
passed by the Deputy Comm;>s_siQner,lAlv- firld
Commissioner has observed that__theV_quest.io.n’whether Thimina
Boyee @,l3illvat. iv.-‘as”‘the. ‘ado”p’tiive father of the petitioner or
was the7–na”tura1’ivrespondent Nos/L & 5 can only be
finally and lVco.nclusi\rely’._adjudicated before the Civil Court and
the revenlue cou”rts_’_cannot pronounce on the same. This
reas*on1i2g ‘recorded by the Deputy Commissioner is just and
properirinf i:h_’e– and circumstances of the case. The vexed
.questi;on Vrielgariding the relationship of Thimrna Boyee @ Pilla
M if !3lf:oye:=:_’— grantee of the land with the petitioner or for that matter
‘_’_&i~vvith’respondent Nos/L 8t 5 can only be conclusively adjudicated
“before the Civil Court.
WP 25719/2009
7. it is not in dispute that the civil suit in O.S.No.Sf5;’2007
is pending before the Civil Judge [Jr.Dn.}, K.R;;Pei’,¢;;.i§§f1’i%::.rein
respondent Nos.4 8: 5 herein have sought for_a_’d’e–ciaratiori
they are the absolute owners of the:’Jproperty”«in’1 ”
from seeking permanent injunction}.. ‘Peti.tion’erA herein “has
appeared and fiied his written statement iVi’1._the.”said_ suit. It is
open for the parties toagitate.”htheiiidjgrievance hefore the Civil
Court in the pending suit.’ V ‘V ‘
SubjeCt’_Vt-r.:3V iiabovei;.o¥ose,r’i2:ti’ons’;”;this Writ petition is
disposed of’ with the orders under
challenge. V:ii.berty’.ivs reserved to the parties to agitate
their griexdranoctpbeiore Court. ,
3UI)GE