Smt Kanthamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN RA NO. 7/2007-08 ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.4.2007 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANN-A AND F AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner in this writ petition is assailing the order passed by respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, in R.A.No.7/2007-8 dated 21.05.2014, whereby respondent No.1 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.4 herein against the order passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar, in LNDRU No.25/2005-06 dated 12.04.2007 and also the order dated 12.02.2004 passed by respondent No.3 - Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation in favour of the petitioner and thereby directed the Tahsildar to conduct spot inspection and draw mahazar to ascertain the possession of

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:43218 WP No. 29617 of 2014

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

subject land by the parties and thereafter to take necessary action.

¶33

It is the case of the petitioner that she is in possession and enjoyment of land measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.21 situated at Sonnappadoddi Village, Masti Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District and thereafter, she filed an application for regularization of her unauthorized cultivation by placing all the documents before respondent No.3 - Committee. The Committee, after conducting spot inspection and drawing mahazar, had granted 30 guntas of land in favour of the petitioner and also issued saguvali chit on 14.08.1984 and by virtue of the same, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record in respect of subject land.

¶34

When things stood thus, respondent No.4 interfered with the possession of subject land and filed an application in Form No.53 for regularization of his unauthorized occupation of 2 acres of land in the very same survey number i.e., Sy.No.21.

¶35

Respondent No.3 - Committee, after holding an enquiry, rejected the claim of respondent No.4 vide endorsement dated 06.07.2004. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 preferred

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43218 WP No. 29617 of 2014

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner - respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, on reassessment of facts and the documents, rejected the appeal filed by respondent No.4 vide order dated 12.04.2007. However, respondent No.4 questioned the said order before respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, after perusal of records, cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner and thereby directed the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry by conducting spot inspection and to draw mahazar in respect of possession of subject land by the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 and thereafter to take necessary action. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court in the instant petition.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.4 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶40

The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was in possession of subject land since four decades and after considering the said aspect, respondent No.3 - Committee has granted 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.21 in favour of the petitioner and saguvali chit was

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43218 WP No. 29617 of 2014

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

issued on 14.08.1984, based on the report/recommendation of the Tahsildar. The said order was challenged by respondent No.4, which came to be affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. In such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner without holding proper enquiry ought not to have cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner unilaterally. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶44

7 . Per contra , respondent No.4 contended that while passing the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has clearly observed that there was a civil dispute in respect of title of the subject land between the petitioner and respondent No.4 in OS.No.24/2002 and though the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed initially, the said order was challenged by respondent No.4 in RA.No.11/2011 and the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment passed in OS.No.24/2002 and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. In such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal of respondent No.4 and cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43218 WP No. 29617 of 2014

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order.

¶48

I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the respective parties and perused the materials on record.

¶49

As could be gathered from records, in Sy.No.21 situated at Sonnappadoddi Village, Masti Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, the petitioner was granted 30 guntas of land by respondent No.3 - Committee. Subsequently, respondent No.4 also filed an application in Form No.53 for grant of 2 acres of land in the very same survey number. However, the Committee rejected the claim of respondent No.4. Subsequently, the said order was questioned before the Assistant Commissioner, which came to be affirmed. On appeal, by respondent No.4, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the same on the ground that there was a civil suit pending in respect of title of subject land. The Deputy Commissioner, while disposing of the appeal, cancelled the grant of 30 guntas of land made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1984. The Deputy Commissioner has also observed that the land claimed by respondent No.4 includes the land granted in favour of the petitioner in Sy.No.21. As such,

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43218 WP No. 29617 of 2014

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

he has directed the Tahsildar to conduct spot inspection and to draw mahazar in respect of subject land to ascertain the possession of land by the petitioner and respondent No.4 and thereafter to take necessary action.

¶53

In view of the above, I find no error in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for the simple reason that the civil suit is also pending before the Civil Court for declaration of title in respect of subject land between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and that the Tahsildar, as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, is required to conduct spot inspection and draw mahazar in respect of possession of subject land by the petitioner and respondent No.4 and thereafter to take necessary action. As such, till the Tahsildar takes necessary action with regard to possession of subject land as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, the parties, i.e., either the petitioner or respondent No.4, whoever is in possession of subject land shall not be dispossessed from the same. The Tahsildar/Respondent No.3 - Committee shall conclude the proceedings as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

8 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:43218 WP No. 29617 of 2014

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the Tahsildar shall issue notice to all the parties before conducting spot inspection and drawing mahazar in respect of subject land.

¶58

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶59

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt Kanthamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kanthamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State by Honnali Police Station Vs Halasiddappa

Manjunatha G Vs Sri Muniraja

Smt Shantala Alias Nagalakshmi P C Vs Smt Rathnamma

M.S. Ramesha Vs Sannahydegowda

Sri Lokesh @ Cable Lokesh Vs Sri Raghunathan Pillai Alias Raghu

Sri. Vinod Kumar Gowda B. K. Vs the State of Karnataka