Vithal S/O Navalappa Balaganur … vs The State Of Karnataka Anr on 6 September, 2010

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE em DAY O.FAAS.E}?TP;I\?II13'E.§<4 do  

BEFORE,'

THE HONBLE MR.JUs:m;E  

W.P No.83430--8343 1' 3 0 (KLR}RE"_'/sLtRj"

BETWEEN:

1. Vithai,   -- .]
S / 0. Navalaippat E§--a1agan3.1rf
Aged ab0u.t=70 gyearsv, 7 _V   V
Occ:AgI*§'cu1ti11fe',"'R/o."A}né1'p.1Ip,  
Tq & DistI*§et';-- 1~3;_1'japu.r;'V  '- 

2. Bhifnanna @ -Bvhe'ema,»_ '  .  __
S /0. Paramanna. B.a1agat:---111 
Since a'eceased=.by" his LRs.,

2(a) ;:e'z:chappa,..  
 Q. N_ingapp'a=B..a1aganur,
_ ' Aged about 65 years.
'  " -..Qe.c:"AgrICu,_lture,

2(L«.). ":~.de1;1gifi.;_  I
 S/$0.' Kobbanna Balaganur
Aged about 60 years,

 n j Ocr::"Agricu1ture,

- fiéetitifiiners 2(a) & 2(1)) are
«  Residing at Ainapur Village,
  Iqiuk & District. Bijapur. : Petitioners

 



3
disposa}. having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that

petitioner No.1 and the grand father7of"jjetitionersu 

2.[b) were brothers. Thjegland hearing "jNo.1'2d'

measuring 12 acres ()6_.gunt.a's Vsitudated  village,
according to the petitionersid'is.i;natt--a"V:]anvd--belonging to one
Navalappa   life time, they
were   ' same and were in
posses'sioVn"af:vfthe:  It is contended that
there   tarnily of the petitioners and

the land int"S1idrvey~  12/ 1 measuring 04 acres 08 guntas

 fai1en"*..to tdhedmshare of Bheemanna @ Bhima and

  measuring 06 acres 38 guntas had fallen

to the s_hare' of Navalappa. T o substantiate the same, the

 petitioriers have produced the record of rights for the year

  ";1,_V9'f.2,£-}';30 to 1938-39. It is their further contention that

"the name of Bhirnanna @§Bhima and Navalappa, the

 



4
father of petitioner No.1 was shown as Kabjedars in the

village register maintained by the Revenue Authorities in
Form No.7. After the death of Navalappa, petitioner. No.1

had succeeded to his estate and he was in  of

the land bearing Survey No.12 / 2 to an   

38 guntas and after the death of  l

2(a) and 203) being grari-d_ childien ;o'i"

sueceeded to the estate of to e2%tent of 04
acres 08 guntas in  is contended that
due to famine, the  to abandon
their land     manual labour to
 for several years.
However, it  that they found that their

names  in the record of rights and the

 A' Gove-r.nrri'ent   as the holder, which, according to

  is illegal and the petitioners are deprived of

their'iAlands'ft)ly' virtue of such entries having been made.

"._ThC petitioners had made representations to the

"«l.j'u.risdiCtiona1 Tahsildar in this regard. Since there was no

3

 



5

action, the petitioners had made further representations,
there was no response from the Tahsildar and it is in this

background, that the petitioners are before this count,

3. Given the above factsland:c'ii'cu1nst.aI1ces:'"ofithe

case, the silence on  loft  is

inexplicable. The  oii-they'petitioners'-that they are
the owners of the landslin  -that their names
have been  their knowledge
and   addressed by the revenue
authorities';   is for the Tahsildar to
enquireinto  issue an endorsement in this

regard, or  "thVere..'ha"s been such irregular deletion of the

ll"-nai1":es?--.'of the petitioners from the revenue records, the

 tofinave been corrected by the Tahsildar, but

they Tahsildars total silence on their representation

  * = V '''therefore is inexplicable.

%

 



Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The third
respondent. Tahsildar, Bijapur, is directed to 

representation. of the petitioners and issue app.r’é)pri:at’e” ti”.

orders in. accordance with law, within .aAA»Vreasoi’_nabi’ee-tinie»,._j_

in any even’: within a period of six weeks imrn thedate. o

receipt of a certified copy of this

= .ji §&$ss