High Court Karnataka High Court

H Sadashivaiah vs Tha Tahsildar on 16 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
H Sadashivaiah vs Tha Tahsildar on 16 December, 2010
Author: B.S.Patil
WP 39706/2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 16'??? DAY OF' DECEMBER, 2010 
BEFORE T T

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE B.S.PATILL* 

W.P.No.39706/2010 (KL:.I.=e«RR/stxiij " " 5   

BETWEEN:

I.

H.SadashiVaiah,

S/0 late Honnappa,
Aged about 67 years,
N0.737. 5*" Cross,

VI Block, Rajajinagar,
Banga10re~«560 10.

H.Panchaksha:raf3:pa. @ 

H.Panchanna,?._ 5 

S/0 lagfe  '
Aged a"o0u.tt';'-5 yeréir.s,'e _ "

N 0.737; '.511' 'Cross, "Jf  « 4' 
Raj aj inagéui_,_ Bang'a_101*e~»--} 

H .  u1<1dappV'a-, V V

 'A    ..... 14 \\
 , Aged ab0ut.6Q. years,
 _ Re,/o"Mé1i1athahai--1i,
" Ye:i.1*;wéIx":i.'p.u rd' H"()b1i.

Ba.'_r1'ga10;':é"N'iQr'if.h Taluk.

H.Sh1%Ja{gafigaiah,

' S/0 Iat'e--~Honr1appa.
" Age'-d¢ab0'L1t 58 years,
A4'-Block. A2, University Quar'i.e1's.

19;?» Jnanabharathi, Banga.1ore«56.

' H . Rer1L1.kappa,

S/0 late leiolanappa,
Aged about 56 years.
No.5. Nag§ar21bhavi Main Road.



VVP 39706/2010

Moodalaalya,
Bar1gal0re--'?2.

6. Chandrashekara 13..
8/0 late H.Basappa.
Aged about 42 years,

7. Siddalingappa B..
8/0 late I~l'.Basappa.
Aged about 38 years.

6 & 7 are residing at No.11, V _

Shlvananda Nllaya, 2"" Cross,  

New Guddadahalli, Mysore R0ad",z._   * -- ' 
Bar1ga1ore~26.     PETITIONERS

[By Sri C.M.Nagabushan,  _ 7

AND:   '

1. The Talfrsildard'   _  _
Bangalore  Tai1ul:_,_ 
Bangalpre, ~ " ~ *  d

2. The Assistant Coinnfissiohfrer,
Bangalore N;)1'tl1 S{;_b~D_iVl~~s"i0n,
Bangalore. "

V.  "Spe:f'1al'D.eputy Conlmissioner,

 V Ba'r1galorerDviat'2'ict,
*- :Bar1gaiv0re.~_09e..l' - . V 

l  4. Srn1.__.H0_rn*ba,%r1rna,

D/0 late Rtidrappa,

 '   Aged ab._.0"ui'. 65 years.

d   '.AASr:nt.:§/enkatalakshmamma.

D/0 late Rudrappa.

   Since deceased by her L.Rs.

(a) B.'I'.Ramesh.
S/0 late Venkal:alaksh.ma1'I1ma,
Aged about 42 years.



(b) B .T. Shivashankar,

S / 0 late Venkatalakshmamma,

Aged about 40 years.

. Smt..Saroj amma,

D/o late Rudrappa.
Aged about 52 years,

. Srr1t..Pad:ma.

D / 0 late Rudrappa,
Aged about 48 years.

. Smt. Swarn alatha,

D/o late Rudrappa,
Aged about 45 years,

. Smt.Rukmar1i,

D / 0 late Rudrap_p'a,_.
Aged about 43" 

10.Purush.otharf1,_V"' fl

8 / o late Rudifippafi '
Aged a"oou.t'38 yoaro,"  

4 to 10 a1'el4relsidi}';g.'at /1,
5"' JV Streetfelogupalyav, "
Halasuro. Bang'a.laore~()8.

. a  A' ' ~.. V
 _ 53/ o"la1:'e.Rud'rVaia.h @ Rudrappa,
" Aged . about_  years,

R/yoVi\/IallafhIa1'i'a1li, Kengtlrxte.

_ Ward  Rajarajeshwarinagar,
 Bangalore North Taluk.

'  .Pdttarud1'aiah,
/G ~Ka.laia.h.

Edged about 82 years,

   R/o Mallathahalli, Kengume,
Ward No. 10, Rajarajeshwarinagar.

Bar1ga1o1'e North Taluk.

"W'39706/2010

u.RESPONDENTS

we 39706/2010
4

(By Sri R.Omkumar. AGA, for R1-3.

Sri Padmanabha Mahalae Sr.Counse1
For Sri S.Raju, Adv. for C/R4, 5(1)). 6, 7&0)

This writ petition is fiied under Articles 226 8:

Constitution of India, praying to quash the orders ai;”Aniie.X:ure–
N passed by the R3 dated 28.6.10 in Rexrisidiiv..1?e’titi0n: V’

No.13/O6~07 and etc.

This petition coming on for Prelimiiiaryjjflearingi

the Court made the following:

0RDt.§;’_

1. In the revision petition filed””byn_respo.ndentNosil1 8: 12
herein before the SpecialllIl3__epnty.:V1″f3ornnfiissio.ner, Bangalore

Urban District, Bangaloreiwhereinsthe-legality and correctness

of the c,i9§ja¥ by the Tahsildar.

Bangalorevvllfliorthl affirmed by the Assistant
Cornrn’issiVoner,l””B_ar1ga’lorel l\iorth Sub-Division, Bangalore, in
‘RA.Naiioe-,%05~pos ll§11″”‘s§.’.03.2oo6, is questioned, petitioners

he_rein ” ‘filledlla,r1..,.Va=ppiicatioi1 seeking their irnpleadrnent as

l resplonde11t_N’os.._1f} to .17′. The application was allowed.

It contended by the respondents herein that they

have _pud’;rehased the land measuring 30 guntas from its original

–djownficr one I-Ianuma and by mistake, in the sale deed instead of

fneiitioiiing the survey number as 3/9, the same was

_tior1ed as Sy. N03/4. and therefore. the entries in the

wp 39706/20:0
5

revenue records were required to be corrected based on the

rectification deed that. t.he petitioners had obtained from the

legal representatives of the original owners. They also

that respondent. Nos.4 to 10 herein did not he1ve.–A4’a’11y.:right ‘

have their names entered in respect oiIthe..said”.lSHyl it u

due to the collusion between respondent to’~.12

said entries had been recorded and”~the same set = L’

aside.

3. The Deputy Commlissdioner ivlh;1s””~lrejleeted the revision

petition filed holdingtl1a{_.~~21fter’& several years, the

grievancegrnadle’ It is also found by the
Deputy CormnissionerA:jthat..__the entries in the revenue records

were ordered to”b_e rec’o1’dved°’t)ased on the registered sale deeds

and tn..ere{e,re.=. the enti’-‘ies made did not call for interference.

l’l’h_l_e”‘i)Te’p11ty_:Colitnniiyssioner has taken care to observe that the

aggrieved pa’rti.es’: were at libert.y to seek redressal of their

grievance approaching the Civil Court and that the entries

_ inade by the revenue authorities are subject to the decision of

___”the Civil Court.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners

claims right in respect. oi’ Sy. No.3/9 based on the rectiticatio’n

er”

WP 39706/2010
6
deed and the entire extent of land is 2 acres 26 guntas, whereas

the petitioners are interested only to an extent of 30 gunte;s__, He

further submits that a representation is made bejtbrepi’-stile

Tahsildar in this regard based on the 1’ectit’iCation-‘deed. V’

Deputy Commissioner ought to have .di1’eeted.’_’the” to

Consider the 1’eprese::1t.ation while tdisipissing. the p1’e\fis.ior-i

petition filed by respondent Nos.h1ti 12.

5. If the petitioners have 1*epresentéttion ..bei’0re the
Tahsildar, it is open to hintto”*p_d’§=§§vueV”tf1ey:hmatter before the

Tahsildar who shall V_aftet”V”hearing petitioners and other

interested perso’:i;s., pziss orders in accordazice with law. The
dismissal of the rev_isio:11_p’e.titi0i’i by the Deputy Commissioner

for the reasollsu’s&tteC1,t.’he1*E3tt§.’;. does not call for interference.

& ”ii\/.£€aI§i’i1g”i’iL&Cleetrvflthtdt the Tahsildar shall pass orders on

the’V’re_preseritatie.n”made, on the merits of the application and

after’ hearinghttfiettlparties without referring to the order passed

. by the Deputy C01’i’ilI1iSSiOE.’}€1′, this writ. petition is dismissed.

Sd/-73
EEFBGE

, .KK