Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 953 (KAR)

K. G. Neelameghashyam v. K. N. Lakshmi

2013-08-21

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMA

body2013
Judgment : 1. Writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.4.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara, in Revision Petition No.31/2008-2009 passed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') wherein the Deputy Commissioner had allowed the revision petition that had been filed by the 1st respondent to set aside the order dated 28.6.2008 passed by the Asst. Commissioner in No.RA(LKP) 4/2006-2007 which had been questioned in the revision petition and had restored the proceedings in MR No.13/1995-96 of the Deputy Tahsildar of Kanakapura Taluk. 2. Subject matter of dispute is between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, who are close relatives. The 1st respondent being the daughter of the elder brother of the petitioner by name K.G. Narayan. The dispute relates to the revenue entries in respect of an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.137/1 of Jakkasandra Village, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk. It is the version of the petitioner that in respect of this extent of land in Sy.No.137/1, the revenue records indicated that entry in respect of 1.15 guntas of land stood in the name of the father of the 1st respondent and in respect of another extent of 1.15 guntas of land it stood in the name of the petitioner. 3. These entries came to be modified in favour of the 1st respondent as per the proceedings in M.R.No.13/1995-1996 by the Deputy Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara, based on an application made to this effect by the 1st respondent claiming that in a family arrangement, land in the names of both her father and the writ petitioner had been allotted to her share and the same being notified called for objections, there was no objection, and on the other hand, insofar as the revenue entries that stood in the name of the writ petitioner, he had himself participated in the enquiry along with his children and had consented for transferring the katha in the name of the 1st respondent. The proceedings were within the knowledge of the writ petitioner and he had questioned it by filing an appeal before the Asst. The proceedings were within the knowledge of the writ petitioner and he had questioned it by filing an appeal before the Asst. Commissioner, Ramanagara, in RA (LKP) No.4/2006-07 after a lapse of more than 10 years contending that the proceedings in MR.No.13/1995-96 is not valid; that the subject property along with other properties had been partitioned between the petitioner and his brother K.G. Narayan, the father of 1st respondent as per the partition dated 5.8.1981 and thereafter an extent of 1.15 guntas of land was in the possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioner. Revenue entries depict the same position. Therefore, the proceedings are not valid etc. 4. The Asst. Commissioner found that change of revenue entries based on oral statement was not proper and therefore directed cancellation of the proceedings in MR.No.13/1995-96 and further directed that the revenue entries should stand in the name of the petitioner and the father of the 1st respondent to the extent of 1.15 guntas of land as per the partition dated 5.8.1981. 5. It was now the turn of the 1st respondent to approach the Deputy Commissioner by filing a revision petition in No.31/2008-09 to contend before the Deputy Commissioner that she was a divorcee and having regard to the said fact that the writ petitioner and his children had agreed to allot even the land purchased by the petitioner in respect of 1.15 guntas of land in favour of the 1st respondent and therefore, that should be restored by setting aside the order of the Asst. Commissioner. 6. In terms of the order dated 7.4.2010, the Deputy Commissioner has mentioned that after considering the arguments of the parties, it was proper to set aside the order of the Asst. Commissioner and to restore the order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar. 7. Heard Mr. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Nandeesh, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent and Smt.M.C. Nagashree, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 8. On a perusal of the impugned order and on hearing the arguments of Mr. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nandeesh, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, I find that the order is totally a non-speaking and cryptic order without assigning any reasons. 9. 8. On a perusal of the impugned order and on hearing the arguments of Mr. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nandeesh, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, I find that the order is totally a non-speaking and cryptic order without assigning any reasons. 9. In a matter of this nature disputes relating to title is fit for examination only by Civil Court and not by the Revenue Authorities, but insofar as the impugned order is concerned I deem it proper to set aside the same only on the ground that it is nonspeaking order and restore the matter to the file of the Deputy Commissioner. The order at Annexure G dated 7.4.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara in Revision Petition No. 31/2008-09 is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner. 10. Rule is issued and made absolute.