IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE--_._
DATED THIS THE 15"' DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010:'f-~i"f";--_:V.
BEFORE E
THE HON'Bi_E MR. JUSTICE ASHO§<WB.__ HIA}.CHIGEjRI""
WRIT PETITION No.3892O of 200_9I
BETWEEN:
N THIPPANNA
S/O AJJAPPA YALIGARA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/O NAVALEHAL VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK I A
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT _ I PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARIS4H§'«.l<'U1i?j':Tfi\:'R SRI 'A-Q/v'PI'--\TI'L, ADVOCATE)
I. THE ASSZISTANT"CQMMISS.ION_E'R-
DAVANAG'ERE_ S'UB-D.1"'IrISIO'H_
DAVANAGERE . ,_
2. I<.M.JAITAI<I
-- THE A_.S'SIS__TANT CO'MvHHISSIONER
DAKIANAGERE' S{}B--DIVISION
'DAVANAG'E'R"E RESPONDENTS
* . E '-(B\? S'§_E_P§AMACHANDRA R.NAIK, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
'THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
I\.J
ORDER
The petitioner has raised the chaiienge to
dated 03.10.2009 (Annexure~–E) passed by
Commissioner and the conseque:V’ntia:iA”;Muta’tio:n’–..’~Ejnt.ijy.’
(Annexure~F) and the Records ofRights—- 3
2. The facts of the “‘b_rie.f0′”are. .that the
Government granted acres at
S3/.No.-46 of Navaie Viiiage ‘ggsihwara Tempie
in 1948 subject€.t’o§*_ceAtta~i_<n: out in the grant
certificate, i./:ii':iii:.:ich as Annexure R.1 to
the third of objections. One Sri
Nagappa flied the lands in question.
The'Assis.t_a'int'_A..e:Co.n1missi'o'r'1er allowed his form No.7/–\ by
gran.t'i"vn_'g;'Vth'e.i:a«tid:~"oVn:V:'28.02.2006, This was challenged by
capacity as the LR, of the deceased
nin Avoioeal No.904/2006 before the Karnataka
(KAT). The KAT, by its judgment, dated
Set aside the Assistant Commissioners order.
V"°'~..:!"fh.Ae"TaVhsiidar vide his order, dated.16.09.2009 directed the
H53;
4,
‘.23
2
– anew. ..\….. A’ll§.l§\1 ;.»e..s\..u…..:.M……_q:..«..4..i…..,,_;.,.~_….. .- H i –
.=.:’:”-**- -W”
the agricultural produce on the land in
q”‘ges’.tioli-,1″_~aCC’«-.(I~l|€\
3. When thus stoo;d”t’ij1ee’Vstétejolé third
.
3.
-e
.1 =
Iii
“:4.
if?
e _
respondent, a under the
Societies Registratior:,iVV’i41tcVt’_yA the affairs of
Srl Eshwara Devara vt3a.rn’ithi’ to the Tahsildar
that the said Comnj’ittee’s’.Vn”am’¢”– shown in the revenue
records. aTia«h4sli:idavEr’lftransnjitted the file to the Assistant
Commzissionerl d;;i’rections in the matter. “the
letter that the ‘petitioner has failed to produce the
thalt..t.tliejvpetitiorier and the villagers have given in writing
that; future} the agricultural production would be
35%
auctioned in public and the amounts realized thereofgfivould
be used for rejuvenating the said Temple. It
that the Katha in respect of the iands in ques’t_i~o_n
mutated in accordance with law.
4. Pursuant to the said ‘refJQ’_rt, dated of”
the Tahsiidar, the Assistant CAo–m:ni–iss»io.nerl_Adirected the
Tahsilciar to change the property in
favour of Sri Eshwara: with the said
direction, the and the record
of rights name of Eshwara
Temple in the’A_if”ec_ords
5. ‘Sri t.i-iar.is’i~..__i<'umar, the learned counsel for the
of the violation of the principles of
:_._natural".ju'stic'et"_*_».__i*iie"V..submits that the petitioner is the
vvekiisting hoitier-~V.of'entries in respect of the lands in question
in.:t'ii4éV.isre'v'e–nAue"'records. He submits that while passing the
L' V:"ii.im_pu.g.ne'd order, the petitioner was not even put on notice.
853%
6. Sri Harish Kumar further submits thatgthe
impugned order is without jurisdiction because,….”i”tli_s’4iljtjhiei
Tahsiidar, who is endowed with the power_.Vt_o:”n’
original authority for passing the forgeffe-ctingflthner
mutation entries. In the instant _case,Fthe impu’igVn.eg o.3rder.:t»
is passed by the Assistant order
passed without the author_i_tj;–‘n’oit. petition is
maintainabie, notwithstanding.the”V–a}i<ani'i.a'idiiitg of aiternative
of fiiing the the Deputy
Commissioner.' V
7. The for the petitioner aiso
submits that thei””thni’rd.ir-espondent Committee is a body of
few who’vwantiitowknock off the vaiuabie property in
questiori’.VAt’_ that the third respondent has to
:i.L3″p’prOaChAtfie _C-iviidéfourt, if it wants to estabiish its rights in
” of the -property in question.
contra, Sri Rarriachandra R. Naik, the
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and _2
.’su:i;§mits that the petitioner cannot invoke the writ
fififi
~–ac’t~«.I:as_ th’e—.
jurisdiction for enforcing his private rights, if anv’;~.T his
remedy is only to approach the Civil Court.
for the dismissal of the writ petition on
availability of alternative remedy Revci’siie,n.A
Petition. He submits that underi’E§e’ction.»”‘V’1’VV;.’:’_pffilthe.17
Karnataka Land Revenue 1.9642,” ifahsiviidar is
subordinate to the Assistan;t.”C’on;3_Vrnissio~n’er:[~
9. Sri appearing for
the respondent iseidiltwojl.threshold objections:
i) The no locus standi to
chal’lenge order, as he is not
the land. The land is granted
:VE’:’s–hvvara Temple and the records have
the name of the said 2Ternpie,
“Th.e”«V:«V.\/aihivatdar is not entitled to have his
shown in the revenue records, so
liigiclontends Sri Gopal. He makes this
submission without prejudice to his
fififii’.
of the –i ..i
.i;
ii
contention that the petitioner has never been
the Vahivatdar of the Tempie.
ii) The second preliminary olgjectior:””ra–i:secfl”:b’y.V
petiitionier claims that _the land
V’to:.l.his father Ajjappa and on the
3’«__V'(:i,iItivate.«Z the land. The iearnedn counsel
_.sii_Vb*m.i’ts that the Eand was never granted to
petitioner’s father; it was grantedto Sri
‘. Eshwara Tempie. The petitioner’s father was
Sri Gopal is that the petitioner’
suppression of mater_i_a–i._.V_faot’siit
that the petitioner NEo.7A
application for the in
question. ‘V on
30 . 9.2 005,.” iiasml wh isperecl in
the m,ie*a’i”no.ra’ijdutn”*of~.,tne inir’i’t”‘vpetition. He
I
5
_i
E
i
also the averments
conta_ined’ii”n p’aragra’ph””.1 of the writ petition,
tierni’__se of Ajjappa, the petitioner continues to
flgéég