Allowed

Haneef Sab v. the Tahsildar

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2022WP/784/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the Tahsildar's order directing boundry fixation. It held that while Section 61 grants revenue courts exclusive jurisdiction for boundary fixation, civil courts cannot proceed with suits involving land boundaries or directs revenue enquiry to identify boundaries during pendency.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned communication dated 23.12.2021 directing the fixation of boundaries.

Haneef Sab Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 784 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 784 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HANEEF SAB PRESIDENT ANJUMAN-E. ISLAM S/O MODDIN SAB AGED 65 YEARS OCC-BUSINESS R/AT DASARAKERI SHIKARIPURA

¶9

SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577428

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. H.N.DIVYATEJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577427

¶15

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTGRICT-577427

¶16

KIRAN KULAKARNI S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT GANDAGADA KERI BELLIGAVI VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577428

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. VARUN J PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 784 of 2022

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED WRITTEN COMMUNICATION IN PASSED BY THE R-1 DTD 23.12.2021 VIDE ANNX-F AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶24

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned written communication dated 23.12.2021 at Annexure-F made by the Tahsildar, Shikaripura Taluk to the Additional Director of Land Records, Shikaripura, directing the fixing of boundaries (Haddubastu) in respect of Sy.Nos.190, 191, 192, 193, 194 and 195 of Shiralakoppa village, Udugani Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk.

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioner that Sri.Krishnamurthy, the father of respondent No.3 herein filed O.S.No.220/2016, which is pending consideration before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Shikaripura, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner herein and two others. While the matter is pending consideration before the civil court, respondent No.3 after the death of

¶26

¶27

WP No. 784 of 2022

¶28

his father-Sri.Krishnamurthy approached the respondentauthorities seeking Haddubastu of the disputed properties.

¶29

This Court while noticing the same directed respondentTahsildar not to proceed any further consequent to the impugned notice dated 23.12.2021.

¶30

Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.3 submits that in the matter of fixation of boundaries, the exclusive jurisdiction lies with the revenue courts and not the civil courts, in terms of Clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that there is nothing wrong in respondent No.3 approaching the revenue authorities to fix boundaries, which would also assist the civil court in disposal of the suit which is pending consideration before the civil court.

¶31

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.3 and learned Additional Government Advocate and on

¶32

¶33

WP No. 784 of 2022

¶34

perusing the petition papers this Court finds that though the provisions contained in Section 61 of the Act, bestows exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of fixation of boundaries of the revenue land with the revenue authorities, nevertheless, it will not preclude the civil court from directing an enquiry or securing a report from the revenue authorities to identify the boundaries and thereafter decide the case. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, during the pendency of the suit, respondent No.3 could not have approached the revenue authorities seeking fixation of boundaries (Haddubastu).

¶35

It is well within the powers of the civil court to

¶36

secure such a report after causing a survey to be conducted at the hands of the revenue authorities.

¶37

Consequently, this Court proceeds to allow the writ petition while setting aside the impugned communication dated 23.12.2021 at Annexure-F, made by respondent No.1-Tahsildar, Shikaripura Taluk to

¶38

¶39

WP No. 784 of 2022

¶40

respondent No.2-Additional Director of Land Records,

¶41

Shikaripura.

¶42

Respondent No.3 may move an appropriate application before the civil court in the pending suit and

¶43

secure orders.

¶44

Ordered accordingly.

¶45

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Haneef Sab v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneef Sab v. the Tahsildar

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

Sri M K Munikrishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

V Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Veerabhadrachari Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Gange Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Muneera Begum Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri M Huchegowda Vs the Assistant Commissioner