IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA}fG2*#LQRE
BEFORE':
THE HON'BLE MR. JUsT:r:E.1g:.N.k"N%Ac«An«:;:jH;;aN%%D&AsA
W.P.3Q943/20_1.()V(AKLR:RES)
BETWEEN:
sax %
S/OPI}'TTASW;AMy_-'V
AGED _
R/O GONDIBAgSAV.ANHALl1TVILLAGE
SOMWARPE-TA T.ALU£{-, 'KODAGU. " '
_ - ' ..PETITIONER
(By sr;.P.mRUNAKAR'Assdc:ATEs)
ANDE' 'V
LT .' -"ms i'AHA51~1.DHAR
_s0MW*A,R1?2Er'i*ALIJK
KQDAGU DIST.
L' 2. TIEEASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
VMAADIKEERE 571 201 KODAGU DIST.
-» _ V DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KQGADU DISTRICT, KODAGU
' 4. SHRI PI ITTASWAMY
' s/0 NINGEGOWDA
/,..
MflDAflNfi39W%RS
GONmB&%NA&Mfl&HVfiLME
SOMWfim%TfiflBK
KODAGU DIST.
5. SR1 GIRISH
3/0 511: PUFFASWAMY, MAJOR
GANDIBASAVANAHALLE VILLAGE 0
SOMWARPET TALUK. '
(By Sri K.s.MAI1.11 3f~'01_§g .
Sri M.c.1AYAK1B.TIF0R.c;,!B._R4)' 1. _ '
THIS _Vs.!R1T%';jj1?_E.T1T:oN FILED' U/A 226 3: 227 OF
CONSTITUTI-QN.;:_ "OF mI431..1«:x. "PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER ,..}f)A.'I'0EI)' 'mssgin BY THE DEPUTY
coMM1.s1sQNEa..--R3AND. 0 %
This petition':*.ofn:i11g0. Preliminary hearing this day,
the coat: made' fihe fe11ow'ing: "
QRDER
00 0113..£11.15"W3;=it:_}9etition the petitioner has prayed for 3. Wait in
_ the n3tur__e ofddeeftiorari to quash the order dated 13.9.2010 passed
H 0 {he tliird respondent and the arder dated 30.12.2009 passed by
‘ the fourth respondent as per Annexure~A and B directing to enter
0 the name of fourth respondent as khatedar.
§.s’\§”\
2. Petitioner and fifth respondent are the sons of
respondent. It is not in dispute that I Acreof
Sy.No.15/9A and 1.76 acres of land in”s–ituated}_at”._
Gondibasavanahaiii village, Somwarpet fxivasi igr.an’ted. ‘
name of fourth respondent and contitnu’ed.=
Petitioner contends gave a
requisition to thejurisdictional. as per
AnneXnre–R§_ his children as the
1<hatedars~ addition to his name.
Accordingly}, the name of petitioner and
fifth res_pondentp_inv addit’ion””to the name of fourth respondent as
ifkhatiedar’-i’iof the iandsmin question. The fourth respondent on
i'(;orn’i_ng “toi”‘1::,noiiy>t’hat the names of his children are entered as
khatedars: an appeal before the second respondent on the
that he has not given any request to the Tahsildar and the
i aiieged request as per Annexure–R5 is fabricated and the same do
not contain his signature. Accepting the version of the fourth
respondent, the second respondent passed the impugned ovrdefat
Annexure–B allowing the appeal and removing the .
petitioner and fifth respondent as khatedars,
order of second respondent at Annexure¥B? p’etitionei’..herein ”
a revision before the third respondent,g.'”The thiidrespondentffafter
hearing both the parties order as per
AnnexurevA dated 13.9.2010 confirrniiig orde’r passed by the
second respon.dent, this”\zy’rit.._petition’.W
3. iifieardffargstnientrs Both the side and perused the
entire writ papers. V V
.4. Petitioner contends that his father the fourth
respoindentpherein gave representation as per Annexure–R5 dated
-‘««___V’~8.2.2OO8.Vt__o~ enter the name of petitioner and fifth respondent as
c.fi~:.h’ate.dars of the lands in question. On the other hand, fourth
” “respondent disputes and denies that he gave a representation as
in
per Annexure–R5. Fourth respondent further contends
signature is forged on Ex.R5. Both. the author-itiesi”bélov\fi…_.’
concurrently accepted the defense .:talt–en Vltlier foulrtth
respondent. There is no document transferringthe right’,.title ”
interest in the lands in question of
respondent. In the absence”‘:of on the
basis of a disputeddocurnent,iirlthatacpQ’f.,tii§’_’fi§a;1ds cannot be
transferred fifth respondent.
Therefore; ilpassediby the second and third
respondents are law.
5. litis seen _frorn the record that fourth respondent has
~filedv-iall’i*ci:¢i.Al suit aglainstwthe petitioner and fifth respondent for
delcE.aration»,of titieljand injunction before a competent civil court.
In the event ofpetitioner succeeding in the civil court, then he is
,always entitled to approach the revenue authorities for transfer of
kihatalto his name. With the above observation, I find no
2-.
~”\J
at
justifiabie ground to interfere with the impugned orders by
the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petitiofi’ ”
dismissed. Both the parties are at 1iber:I:ymt”o”v.ro&r1§:out;«tiieir remedy”.
before a competent civil court in so far as it’ relates tofije t’itle*.a.nd V’
possession of the lands in question.V.
