Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 856 (KAR)

ISHWAR BASAVANNEPPA KOLVI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2006-10-28

V.G.SABHAHIT

body2006
ORDER This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum District, dated 31-5-2004 dismissing the revision and confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, dated 25-10-2002 wherein the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order entering the name of the fourth respondent in the revenue records in respect of land comprised in Sy. No. 19 measuring 15 acres, 18 guntas of Patagundi Village, Gokak Taluk. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the land belong to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. He had incurred loan which could not be repaid and therefore land was forfeited. Thereafter, in view of the Government order enabling restoration of the land if the amount is paid, fourth respondent made an application for restoration of land and land was restored to the legal heir of the father of the petitioner and the fourth respondent. However, entry was made only in the name of the fourth respondent and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed by order dated 25-1-2002 and revision filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum was also dismissed on 31-5-2004. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 4. It is clear from the perusal of the material on record that the land belonging to Basavanneppa Balappa Kolavi and petitioner and fourth respondent are sons of said Basavanneppa Balappa Kolavi. Basavanneppa died leaving behind his wife-Kashawwa, petitioner, the fourth respondent and another son Mahadev and daughter Sarojini. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, dated 18-7-1985 shows that application for restoration was filed by the fourth respondent and Tahsildar certified that land may be restored to the fourth respondent as the legal heir of Basavanneppa and accordingly, order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner restoring the land to the fourth respondent, legal heir of Basavanneppa as he has paid the arrears of amount which was not paid by his father. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that though the land is restored to the petitioner since the property belong to Basavanneppa father of the petitioner and the fourth respondent, the same would enure in favour of all the children of Basavanneppa. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that though the land is restored to the petitioner since the property belong to Basavanneppa father of the petitioner and the fourth respondent, the same would enure in favour of all the children of Basavanneppa. It is well-settled that revenue authorities cannot go into the question of title. In view of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-A land has been restored in favour of the fourth respondent, the question as to whether the said property would enure to the benefit of other children of Basavanneppa including the petitioner or would exclude them and would be the self-acquired property of the fourth respondent cannot be gone into by the Revenue Authorities and the question as to whether the said grant would enure to the benefit of the petitioner and other children of Basavanneppa can be decided only by the Civil Court and not by the Revenue Authorities and wherefore, the finding given by the Deputy Commissioner that it is the self-acquired property of Basavanneppa is clearly erroneous as the Revenue Authorities cannot go into the question of title. However, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner who in turn had confirmed the entry made in favour of the fourth respondent on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum dated 18-7-1985 which is in favour of the fourth respondent is justified and it is open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to obtain declaration that he is also entitled to the share in the property that is restored to the fourth respondent on the ground that himself, fourth respondent and other children of Basavanneppa have succeeded to the property of Basavanneppa which can be decided only by the Civil Court and Civil Court shall independently consider the said question and pass appropriate decree and if such decree is passed, it is open to the petitioner to make an application for change of entry, in view of the above said finding that the finding given by the Deputy Commissioner that the property is self-acquired property of Basavanneppa is set aside, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the entry made in favour of the fourth respondent in the revenue records on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 18-7-1985 is entitled to be confirmed. However, it is made clear that question as to whether the restoration of land in favour of the fourth respondent enures to the benefit of the legal heirs of Basavanneppa including the petitioner, fourth respondent, children of Basavanneppa or as to whether it is the self-acquired property of the fourth respondent shall have to be decided by the Civil Court and it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Civil Court and to make an application for change of entry if a decree is passed in his favour. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with above said observations with no order as to costs.