Dismissed

Juber Ahmed v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2021WP/7988/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging a mutation order transferring land records to a third party. The court held that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Consequently, the writ petition was declared not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for not being maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

Juber Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7988 OF 2021 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JUBER AHMED, S/O. DASTAGEER SAB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. 2^ND CROSS, MADARI PALYA, URGADUR SHIMOGA, SHIMOGA, KARNATAKA-577203

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.S.SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. ANANTHANARAYANA K.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001

¶13

2 . TAHSILDAR SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA-577201

¶14

3 . ASST. COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA SUB DIVISION, SHIMOGA-577201

¶15

4 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577201

¶16

5 . SRI. RAM PAL RAWAT AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

S/O FAKIRE RAWAT, R/AT PURANI BASTI, KHURRAM NAGAR, BIKASH NAGAR P.O. GUZIPUR PS, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH-226022

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.25.1.2021 PASSED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 in Case No.SMGAC-LRF0LRF/03/2021 (E62947) at Annexure-F.

¶25

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of 2 acres out of 3 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.3/2 of Urgadur Village, Nidige Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk and District having purchased it in terms of a deed of sale dated 07.04.2017 from one Maqbool Unnisa and her family. The petitioner claimed that his name was entered in the revenue records pursuant to MR.No.T61/2000-2001 dated 10.10.2020.

¶26

¶27

The petitioner claims that in the year 2016, the revenue records of the above land was transferred to the name of Government, without assigning any reason and therefore, the predecessor of petitioner challenged it in a Revision Petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga in R.Misc.No.8/2016-17 who remitted the case back to the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division, Shivamogga for fresh disposal. He claimed that subsequent thereto, the name of his vendor was restored in the revenue records. It is claimed that respondent No.3 without notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner effected mutation in respect of the land in question in the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records. The petitioner claimed that such entry was based on an order of the Court dated 25.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.3, following an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.40447/2018. The petitioner claimed that the impugned order dated 25.01.2021 was without notice to him and that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.40447/2018 is

¶28

¶29

concerning the land bearing Sy.No.3/P2, the respondents have inserted the name of respondent No.5. He therefore, prays that the said order of the respondent No.3 be set aside, since the same was without notice to him.

¶30

Learned Government Advocate submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any mutation or transfer of the revenue records, he has to file an appeal under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act of 1964') and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. He also submitted that since there was a dispute regarding title between the parties, the petitioner should establish his right before a Civil Court.

¶31

The impugned order discloses that the land in Sy.No.3/P2 was earlier sold by Maqbool Unnisa w/o Abdul Rasheed to the respondent No.5 herein on 08.12.2006. Later proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act of 1961') was

¶32

¶33

initiated and the land was forfeited. The respondent No.4 challenged the order of forfeiture before the Tribunal which was dismissed. Thereafter, he file W.P.No.40447/2018. This Court in terms of the order dated 17.12.2020 allowed the writ petition and remitted the case back to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration.

¶34

In the meanwhile, the vendor of the petitioner had filed R.Misc.No.8/2016-17 before respondent No.4 challenging the entry of the name of "Government" in the revenue records, presumably after it was forfeited under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act of 1961. The respondent No.4 in terms of the order dated 03.11.2016 remitted the case before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 considered both the cases and in terms of the order dated 25.01.2021 restored the name of the respondent No.5 herein by deleting the name of the vendor of the petitioner. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order transferring the revenue records, it is for the petitioner to avail the

¶35

¶36

alternate remedy provided under law. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.

¶37

It is open for the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy provided under Section 136(3) of the Act of 1964, challenging the deletion of his name from the revenue records relating to Sy.No.3/2 of Urgadur Village, Nidige Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk and District.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

GJM

Juber Ahmed v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juber Ahmed v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. K. N. Chandrika Vs the Deputy Commissioner

K M Malleshgowda Vs state of karnataka

Siddesh Y S Vs State of Karnataka

K v Paramesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Panduboyi Vs Smt Thayamma

Mallesha Vs sushama