Rajendra Govind Kolvekar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-A i.e., THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2007, IN RB.RTA.134/2004-05, PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT, INSOFAR AS M.E.1358 IS CONCERNED.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4184 WP No. 64679 of 2011

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.10.2007, passed by Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, insofar as M.E.No.1358 is concerned (produced as per

¶24

Annexure-A).

¶25

The brief facts of the case are;

¶26

2.1. The petitioner purchased Plot No.16, measuring 58x60 sq.feet, formed in Survey No.82/1/5, situated at Adarsh Nagar, Belagavi, , under the registered sale deed dated 30.03.1993, produced as per Annexure-C.

¶27

2.2. On the basis of the said sale deed, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records as per M.E.No.1358 dated 10.04.1997.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4184 WP No. 64679 of 2011

¶29

2.3. Respondent No.4, without any right, title, or

¶30

interest, challenged the said M.E.No.1358 by preferring an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal by confirming the mutation entry, as there was inordinate delay in preferring the appeal.

¶31

2.4. Respondent No.4 contends that he is the owner

¶32

of the land in question, and his claim over the property is pending before the Land Tribunal, Belagavi. With such a claim, Respondent No.4 approached Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order at Annexure-A, setting aside M.E.No.1358 and other similar mutation entries.

¶33

Heard Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T. Hanumareddy,

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4184 WP No. 64679 of 2011

¶36

learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3 and perused the materials on record.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the adjacent plot owners, who were aggrieved by Annexure-A, had preferred W.P.No.18399/2007 before this Court seeking to quash the mutation entries in respect of their plots. The said writ petition was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 09.03.2012. The said order was challenged by Respondent No.4 by preferring Writ Appeal No.30961/2012 C/w. Writ Appeal No.31103/2012. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeal vide order dated 07.08.2013, by holding that, since the matter is pending before the Land Tribunal, the order of the Land Tribunal will decide the rights of the parties in respect of the land in question and liberty was reserved with Respondent No.4 to move the Revenue Authorities after disposal of his application before the

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4184 WP No. 64679 of 2011

¶39

Land Tribunal. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, a similar order may be passed in the present case as well.

¶40

Learned AGA also endorsed the facts narrated above and submits that, he has no objection for passing similar order.

¶41

On perusal of the materials on record, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as stated above, is supported. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the mutation orders passed on various plots, including Plot No.16 belonging to the petitioner. The adjacent landowners, who have approached this Court, by filing W.P.No.18399/2007, have succeeded in their petition, and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, on consideration of the materials on record, held that, since the dispute with regard to the ownership of the agricultural land is pending before the Land Tribunal, Belagavi, between the erstwhile owners, Respondent No.4 could approach

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4184 WP No. 64679 of 2011

¶43

the Revenue Authorities, after the matter is disposed of by the Land Tribunal. The said order was admittedly confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.30961/2012 and connected matter.

¶44

Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be allowed, by quashing Annexure-A in respect of Plot No.16, which is said to have been purchased by petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 13.03.1993. However, liberty is to be reserved with the contesting

¶45

Respondent No.4 to approach the Revenue Authorities, if he succeeds before the Land Tribunal.

¶46

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶49

ii. The order dated 04.10.2007 in RB.RTA.134/200405, passed by Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, in respect of Plot No.16 belonging to the petitioner, is set aside.

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4184 WP No. 64679 of 2011

¶51

iii. The Mutation Entry No.1358 dated 10.04.1997 is

¶52

ordered to be restored.

¶53

iv. Respondent No.4, being the contesting respondent, is reserved liberty to approach the Revenue Authorities, if he succeeds in his claim before the Land Tribunal, Belagavi,.

¶54

Sd/(M.G.UMA) JUDGE

¶55

gab CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Rajendra Govind Kolvekar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Govind Kolvekar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beerappa Lokappa Naik Vs the Land Tribunal

Abdul Rehaman K S/O Abdul Rawoof K Vs the Head of the Board

Sri.Satyappa B Suraani, Vs Sri.Sangappa K Suraani

Hugar Shanthamma W/O Late Hugar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Indiraje W/O Bhairava Singh Ghorpade Vs the Joint Director of Land Records

Gangadharayya S/O Mahantlingayya Hireamth Aliyas Kustagi Vs the Deputy Commisioner