Dismissed

Sri Jailani S/O. Abdul Sab Yaligar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2023WP/103762/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition, quashing an endorsement denying entry of the petitioner's name in revenue records. The Court remitted the matter to the authorities to verify records and restore the name as per a prior coordinate order, noting one beneficiary had died.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned endorsement quashed; respondents directed to restore petitioner's name in revenue records and verify records.

Sri Jailani S/O. Abdul Sab Yaligar Vs the Deputy… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8380 WP No. 103762 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 103762 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. JAILANI S/O. ABDUL SAB YALIGAR, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. AMMINABHAVI, TAL. & DIST. DHARWAD-580001.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN .M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD SUB-DIVISION, DHARWAD-580001.

¶14

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR, NAVALGUND TALUK, NAVALGUND-582208, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶16

(BY SRI. V.S. KALSURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3)

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED. 06.01.2023 IN NO. Dgï.n.¹./£Áå/ªÀ»/83/22-23/1018 VIDE ANNEXUREH ISSUED BY 3^RD RESPONDENT AND DIRECT THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS PER THE APPLICATION DATED. 12.01.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8380 WP No. 103762 of 2023

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

¶24

the endorsement dated 06.01.2023 and consequently seeks a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records of the property in question by answering his application dated 12.01.2022.

¶25

Heard Sri. Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶26

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶27

On 10.01.1994, a gift deed is executed by Smt. Rahamatbi Hussainsab Mahaldar in favour of the petitioner during her life time. The petitioner then approached this Court in Writ Petition No.5941/2007 which comes to be disposed on 04.01.2022 by the following order:

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8380 WP No. 103762 of 2023

¶29

2. The petitioner claims that respondent No.4 was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.655/1 measuring 7 acres 14 guntas in Morab Village, Navalgund Taluk, Dharwad Distrcit. He claimed that respondent No.4 executed a gift deed dated 01.01.1994 and conveyed the said property to the petitioner. Following the above, the revenue entries were entered in the name of the petitioner in ME No.1156/A. The power of attorney of respondent No.4, raised a dispute before respondent No.3, who directed registration of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. An appeal was preferred by the power of attorney of respondent No.4 before respondent No.2, who in terms of the order dated 27.08.2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent No.3. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 was rejected in terms of the order dated 31.01.2007. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition is filed.

¶30

3. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent No.4 died on 09.10.2011 without any issues and the petitioner was the owner of the suit property in question in terms of the Hiba executed by respondent No.4 on 10.01.1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an affidavit of the petitioner declaring that the deceased-respondent No.4 did not leave behind any children. In view of the fact that respondent No.4 has not left behind any issues and since the petitioner has set up a gift deed allegedly executed by respondent No.4 and since the revenue records were brought about in the name of the petitioner based on

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8380 WP No. 103762 of 2023

¶32

the said gift, the revenue authorities could not have adjudicated upon the legality of the gift deed.

¶33

4. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is set aside and the order passed by respondent No.3 is restored. However, this order shall not bind the legal representatives, if any, of respondent No.4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records of the land in question within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

After disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner submits a representation to implement the order passed by the Court, by then, Rahamatbi Hussainsab Mahaldar died. On the death of the said person, the name of the petitioner is represented to be entered by virtue of the gift deed so executed as observed ( Supra ), in the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. That having been turned down by the impugned endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

In the light of the order being passed by this Court directing entry of the name of two persons who were beneficiaries of the gift deed in the year 1994 and one of

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8380 WP No. 103762 of 2023

¶37

the beneficiary dying after the order passed by this Court in the year 2022, the authorities shall now reconsider the issue afresh.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the respondent to verify the records and pass appropriate orders reflecting the name of the petitioner as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5941/2007.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

kmv

¶41

Ct:Bck

Sri Jailani S/O. Abdul Sab Yaligar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jailani S/O. Abdul Sab Yaligar v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Nagappa Alias Nagaraj Kareppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Appanna S/O. Navalappa Karagar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sangeeta Alias Bouravva Hanamant Komar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Arun S/O Mahadevappa Honnabindagi, Vs the Secretary (Pri. and Secondary)

Shri Ranganath Krishnaji Mulagund Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Dadapeth Imamuddin Deendar Vs State of Karnataka