Loading...

Sri Madhu Kumar vs The Tahasildhar on 18 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Madhu Kumar vs The Tahasildhar on 18 October, 2010
Author: H N Das
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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information