Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 358 (KAR)

Shivanand v. Deputy Commissioner

2013-03-19

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2013
ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order dated 7-2-2013 passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Yadgir District, in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') at the instance of respondents 4 and 5. Under the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has directed certain revenue entries excluding the name of the writ petitioner in respect of an extent of 9450 sq. ft. consisting of one shed measuring 20 x 10 and the open space, which had came to be mutated in the name of the petitioner in File No. TMC/339/2009-10, dated 6-11-2009 to be set aside and including the name of the respondents 4 and 5 who are the heirs of the Basavanthrao Deshmukh, the father of respondents 4 and 5 herein. 2. Writ petitioner being aggrieved by the same has filed this writ petition. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that the subject land had been sold in favour of the writ petitioner by the second respondent the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, Gulbarga as per the sale deed dated 23-10-2009 (copy produced at Annexure-B) for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,97,000/- and therefore, the Revenue Authorities had very correctly shown the entries in the Municipal Records in favour of the writ petitioner; that there is no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner to have acted at variance; that the Deputy Commissioner failed to notice that the sale deed had been executed by a public authority and therefore, it should have been accepted etc.4. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance on caveat and Sri I.R. Biradar, learned Advocate appears on behalf of these respondents. 5. Sri I.R. Biradar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submits that the subject property formed part of an extent of 13 acres 34 guntas in Sy. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance on caveat and Sri I.R. Biradar, learned Advocate appears on behalf of these respondents. 5. Sri I.R. Biradar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submits that the subject property formed part of an extent of 13 acres 34 guntas in Sy. No. 1/1 of Adilapur Village in Shahapur Taluk; that out of this, an extent of 9 acres 30 guntas had been acquired by the Town Municipal Authorities for the purpose of integrated development of Shahapur Town in the year 1984 and thereafter, an extent of 4 acres 4 guntas remained with the original owner, the father of respondents 4 and 5; that in respect of such land, the second respondent had no authority or jurisdiction to execute a sale deed; that too being a Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, he had no power to convey even municipal lands assuming that it was part of an extent of 9 acres 30 guntas of land acquired by the Municipal Authorities etc. 6. Sri N.S. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner at the first instance does not have jurisdiction to pass an order; that it is only the Regional Commissioner who had jurisdiction and who could have passed an order under the provisions of Section 322 of the Act; that the suit land which was acquired by the Government in the year 1984 had been transferred to the Department of Industries and Commerce and this extent was sold in favour of the writ petitioner as per the sale deed of the year 2009 and therefore, the petitioner had valid title and the revenue entries had been mutated in his favour and this should not have been interfered by the Deputy Commissioner as per the impugned order at Annexure-K. 7. Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, who had been furnished with an advance copy of writ papers submits that the question of identification of property cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction etc. If the petitioner is claiming the ownership to the extent indicated above, it is open to the petitioner to seek for declaration based on such conveyance deed. 8. If the petitioner is claiming the ownership to the extent indicated above, it is open to the petitioner to seek for declaration based on such conveyance deed. 8. Though it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed has been executed by a public authority and therefore it should be accepted and should not be doubted in the wake of assertions made by the parties in this petition, it is not for this Court to assume anything in favour of any person and therefore, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court if so advised and desires and to make good his claim to the suit property. 9. Insofar as the jurisdictional aspect raised by Sri N.S. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned; that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is lacking in jurisdiction in respect of revenue entries, submission by the learned Counsel for the Caveator is that the post of Divisional Commissioner being abolished, the Deputy Commissioner has been conferred with such power etc. 10. It is open to the petitioner to work out his rights and remedies available elsewhere in accordance with law. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.