The Sar Desai Vs the Principal Secretary

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4714 WP No. 61284 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 61284 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE SAR-DESAI, THE NAVALGUND SHIRASANGI TRUST, BELGAUM. BY ITS PRESIDENT, EX-OFFICIO MEMBER, NAGAR, BAGALKOT, PIN - 587104.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶13

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR, SAUNDATTI.

¶16

BHEEMAPPA S/O. SHIVAMURTEPPA HORAKERRI,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4714 WP No. 61284 of 2011

¶18

AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AT & POST: SHIRASANGI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶19

VEERASANGAPPA S/O. APPAYYAPPA YAKKUNDI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AT & POST SHIRASANGI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶20

DONGRISAB S/O. HASANASAB HASANABAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AT & POST: SHIRASANGI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶21

MAHANTESH S/O. MALLIKARJUN MUNAAVALLI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AT & POST: SHIRASANGI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶22

HANAMARADDI S/O. FAKEERADDI HOOLI, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AT & POST: SHIRASANGI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶23

HANAMANT S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA BADIGER, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AT & POST SHIRASANGI, TQ: SAVADATTI,

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4714 WP No. 61284 of 2011

¶25

DIST: BELGAUM.

¶26

GADIGEPPA W/O. SANGAPPA SIRASANGI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST GRAM DEVI SRI. UDACHAMMA & HANUMAN TEMPLE, R/O. SIRASANGI, TAL: SANUDATTI.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R10; SRI. SACHIN C. KULKARNI, FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT – R11)

¶29

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ON INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE R.NO.1 TO R.NO.2 TO DELETE THE NAME OF TRUST COMMITTEE IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 28/10/2010 ¸ÀASÉå.PÀAE 97 J¯ï

¶31

DgïJ/ 2009.

¶32

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

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4714 WP No. 61284 of 2011

¶34

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioner is a trust, represented by its the

¶37

Ex-officio president being the Deputy Commissioner has filed this petition seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the directions issued by respondent No.1, dated 28.10.2010, addressed to respondent No.2 to delete the name of the trust committee in the record of rights produced as per Annexure-E.

¶38

Heard Sri.Jayakumar S Patil, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri.Anand R Kolli, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 10, Sri.Sachin C Kulkarni, learned counsel for the proposed respondent No.11. Perused the materials on record

¶39

It is the contention of the petitioner that Annexure-E is the Communication addressed by

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4714 WP No. 61284 of 2011

¶41

respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, directing him to enter the name of the Government in respect of 755.32 acres of land classified as forest pada land, situated at Sirsangi village, Savadatti taluk in the revenue records. It is the further contention of the petitioner that 755.32 acres of land comprised in several survey numbers situated in Sirsangi village was originally standing in the name of Lingappa Jayappa Desai, who was the Inamdar of Navalagund Samsthana. He executed the Will dated 06.06.1906, creating a trust by name Sardesai of Navalagund-Sirsangi Charitable Trust, Belagavi,

¶42

represented by Ex-officio President-the Deputy Commissioner. The testator died on 23.08.1906, upon which the Will in question came into effect. Accordingly, in Column No.9 of the record of rights the name of Sardesai Navalagund Sirsangi Trust represented by Collector Belagavi came to be entered. This entry was in existence till 2010-2011, in the record of rights. However, suddenly the Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department issued Annexure-E dated 28.10.2010

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4714 WP No. 61284 of 2011

¶44

directing the Divisional Commissioner, Belagavi division, to enter the name of the Government to the entire extent of 755.32 acres of land, on the ground that, Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952 (for short the ‘Act’) came into effect from 01.08.1953. Therefore, the land belongs to the Government.

¶45

Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has

¶46

drawn the attention of the Court to the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952 to contend that the Act was enacted to abolish personal Inams in the State of Bombay. He refers to Section 5 of the Act to contend that, on abolition of the personal Inams, all Inam lands shall be liable for payment of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the code, and the rules made thereunder. But, the land is not liable for resumption in favour of the Government.

¶47

Section 5(1) 2 (a) and (b) of the Act makes it

¶48

clear that even if an Inamdar was in actual possession of the land, he is liable for payment of the Land Revenue due

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4714 WP No. 61284 of 2011

¶50

in respect of such land held by him, and he shall be entitle to all rights, and shall be liable to obligations in respect of

¶51

such land as an occupant under the code, and the rules made thereunder.

¶52

The petitioner has produced a bunch of record of rights pertaining to the land in question, wherein the name of Sardesai Navalagund Sirsangi Trust, i.e. Collector Saheb, Belagavi is mentioned both in Column No.9 as well as in Column No.12, as the person in possession and cultivation of the land. Annexure-E came to be issued on 28.10.2010, by the Under Secretary to enter the name of the Government in the revenue records since the Act came into effect from 01.08.1953. The impugned direction does not specify as to what is the right of the Under Secretary, Revenue Department to issue such a direction, when the Act of 1952 does not provide for resumption of the land. It is stated that no enquiry was held by the Under Secretary before issuing such a direction as per Annexure-E.

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4714 WP No. 61284 of 2011

¶54

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶55

representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 could not justify the impugned Communication in any manner in the light of provisions of the Act, especially Section 5 of the said Act.

¶56

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 10, even though opposes the petition, was not in a position to contend as what was the rights of private respondent Nos.5 to 10 to oppose granting of relief in favour of the petitioner, when private respondent Nos.5 to 10 could not trace their rights over any piece of the property, which is the subject matter of the impugned CommunicationAnnexure-E.

¶57

It is to be noticed that the proposed respondent No.11 had filed I.A.No.1/2023, seeking his impleadment claiming right over Sy.No.157 of Sirsangi village. Even though the learned counsel representing proposed respondent No.11 contends that, he was performing pooja in the temple situated in the said land, and was in occupation of the same, he has not produced any

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4714 WP No. 61284 of 2011

¶59

document in support of his contention. However, he places reliance on Annexure-R2 produced along with the application, to contend that the name of one Rudrayya was entered on 01.01.1948, as per M.E.No.1245, and he was reported to be a tenant. Proposed respondent No.11 derived his right through Rudrayya, who died in 1979. There are as documents to support such contention.

¶60

Learned counsel for the proposed respondent No.11 contends that the occupancy rights was granted in favour of the proposed respondent No.11, but no such document is produced before this Court. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner made a candid submission that if the land Tribunal had already granted occupancy rights in favour of any person and if such an order has reached finality, the petitioner is not going to challenge the same. Under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to implead proposed respondent No.11. Similarly, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by private respondent Nos.5 to 10. Under such circumstance, I am of

¶61