Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shantamma vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 19 December, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.203776/2024(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTAMMA
W/O. HUCCHAPPAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KHASGETESHWAR NAGAR,
TALUK TALIKOTI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586214.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PUNITH MARKAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101.
5. THE TAHSILDAR,
TALIKOTI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586214.
6. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS,
"DARULA A WAKF" NO.6,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.B. YADAV, HCGP, FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE, FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED MUTATION BEARING NO. M.R.NO.T-72 DATED
15.01.2019, IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.309/*/
HISSA 3 MEASURING 06 ACRE 04 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT
BALAGANUR VILLAGE, HOBLI TALIKOTI, TALUK TALIKOTI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
1. Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts
notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel Sri P.S.
Malipatil accepts notice for respondent No.6.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024
2. In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the
following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari
to quash the impugned mutation bearing
No.M.R.No.T-72 dated: 15-01-2019, in respect of
land bearing Sy.No.309/*/hissa 3, measuring 06
acres 04 guntas, situated at Balaganur Village,
Hobli Talikoti, Taluk: Talikoti, Dist: Vijayapur, vide
Annexure-C, in the interest of justice & equity.
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or
direction, directing the respondent No.5 to delete
the name of the 6th respondent, in respect of land
bearing Sy.No.309/*/hissa 3, measuring 06 acre 04
guntas, situated at Balaganur Village, Hobli Talikoti,
Taluk: Talikoti, Dist: Vijayapur, in column No.11
from the record of rights vide Annexure-D1 to D6,
in the interest of justice.”
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for respondent No.1 to 5 and learned counsel
for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that under identical circumstances, the Judgments / orders
of this Court in the cases of Chand Sab vs. State of
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024
Karnataka & others – W.P.No.202965/2022 dated
06.01.2023 and M.Ravindra Reddy vs. State of
Karnataka & others – W.P.No.200340/2021 dated
23.02.2021, this Court allowed the aforesaid petitions and
passed the following orders:-
ORDER PASSED IN W.P.No.202965/2022
“Heard Sri. Shivaputra S. Udabalkar, the learned Counsel
for the petitioner.
2. In this petition, the petitioner seeking writ of
mandamus to delete the name of Mojangiri Sunni Waqt
Property, in column Nos.9 and 12 in the RTC marked at
Annexure-C.
3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that without issuing any notice and without
following procedure contemplated under the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, the name of Mojangri Sunni Wagf
Property, is ordered to be entered in column Nos.9 and 12
of RTC.
4. The learned Government Advocate would
justify the order with reference to Circular dated
04.01.2010, which is produced in W.P.No.201590/2022.
5. It is needless to say that the Circular cannot
Over-ride the provision of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act. For effecting changes in the RTC the procedure
contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, is
to be followed. The said procedure is not followed. Notice
is not issued to the petitioner before making changes in
the RTC. The impugned entries are made behind the back
of the petitioner.
6. Under these circumstances, the petition is
allowed.
7. The respondents No.5 to 6 are directed to
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024delete the name of the Mojangiri sunni Wagf Property in
column Nos.9 and 12 of the RTC, within 10 days from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to
restore the entries as it stood earlier to impugned entry.
8. However, it is made clear that this Court has not
expressed the rights of the petitioner.
9. The respondent No.5 may initiate proceedings
pursuant to Circular if so advised in law. In such an event,
the respondent No.5 shall issue notice to the petitioner
and respondents No.6 before passing further orders
pursuant to Circular.”
ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.200340/2021
1. Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned HCGP accepts
notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel accepts notice
for respondent No.6.
3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a
certiorari to quash the extract of the mutation dated
19.09.2018 bearing MR No.H124 vide Annexures-D and
D1 in respect of Sy.No.301/5 wherein respondent No.5-
Tahsildar has entered the name respondent No.6 – Wakf
Board as also for a mandamus directing the respondent
No.5 to delete the name of respondent No.6 in respect of
aforesaid survey number from the record of rights and
restore the name of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in
enjoyment and in actual possession of the land bearing
Sy.No.301/5 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas situated at
Manvi Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District. The aforesaid
land had been granted to one Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera
W/o Wahid Quadri, under the provisions of Inams
Abolition Act in the year 1982 as regards which Form
No.II was issued on 20.03.1982. Thereafter, the said
Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera approached the Assistant
Commissioner, Raichur for permission to sell the land
which was granted vide Annexure-A dated 17.09.1991. In
pursuance of which, the petitioner’s father purchased the
aforesaid land by registered sale deed dated 19.09.1991
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024
and the name of the petitioner’ father had been entered in
the revenue records on 19.09.2018. Subsequent to the
purchase, the name of the father of the petitioner was
entered. After the death of the father of the petitioner,
the name of the petitioner came to be entered into in the
revenue records in the year 2017.
5. Respondent No.2-Regional Commissioner has
issued a office note relying on the government
notification/circular directing the revenue authorities-
Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Wakf
officer to enter the name of Wakf Board as owners of
lands, which were notified as that belonging to the Wakf
Board in the records of rights. On the basis of the said
direction, respondent No.5-Tahsildar without issuing
notice unilaterally entered the name of the Wakf Board in
the year 2011 of the records of rights. It is aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that there is no such right vested
with the respondents to insert the name of the
respondent No.6 – Wakf Board.
7. Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent
No.6 would submit that the entry has been made in terms
of notification issued in the year 1974 recognising the
Wakf to be the owner of the property and as such, by
following the procedure under Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the
Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017, the name of the respondent
No.6 Wakf Board was mutated and entered into the
records of rights. As such, what has been done is correct
and
proper.
8. Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned HCGP submits
that the Tahsildar has acted in terms of office note issued
by respondent No.2-Regional Commissioner who has in
turn acted on notification of the year 1974 and Rule 6 and
Rule 7 of Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.
9. Heard Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and
Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and
perused the papers.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024
10. The petitioner claims that the land has been
granted to Smt.Syeda Sajjada Peera in the year 1973-74
and her name was entered in the revenue records
whereas the Wakf Board claims that they are the owners
of the land in terms of the notification issued in the year
1974. On the basis of this claim and counter claim as
regards ownership of the land, there is a dispute between
the parties.
11. In this background on basis of the notification
of the year 1974, the Wakf Board wrote a letter to the
respondent No.5 – Tahsildar to enter the name of the
Wakf Board in the revenue records and Tahsildar acting
on the said request has made the said entry along with
the name of the petitioner whose name was already found
in the revenue records in Column 11.
12. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides for a
mode and methodology for making entries, carrying out
mutation, etc., in the revenue records. One of the cardinal
rules being that if any person’s name to be effected in the
revenue records or for any change in the revenue records,
notice has to be issued and principles of natural justice
has to be followed and the said party has to be heard and
thereafter orders to be passed.
13. In the present case, all these aspects has been
violated merely because the Wakf Board has sent a
request to the respondent No.5 to enter the name of the
Walkf Board in Column 11. Such a process and procedure
is unknown to law. Once a name of the third party is
entered in the revenue records, if the Wakf Board seeks
to get its name in the records, the Wakf Board is required
to follow the process and procedure under the Land
Revenue Act including Section 136 of the said Act. Further
more, the Tahsildar is required to follow the procedure
under Rule 128 and 129 of the Land Revenue Rules
before making any change. None of these are followed in
the present case.
14. There is highhandedness in the matter in which
Wakf Board wrote a letter to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar
has blindly considered the request of the Wakf Board and
acted on.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024
15. In view thereof and since there is a serious
lapse of procedural aspect, a certiorari is issued quashing
the order dated 19.09.2018 inserting the name of the
Wakf Board in Column 11 of the records of rights.
Consequently, a mandamus is issued directing the
respondent No.5-Tahsildar, Manvi to delete the name of
respondent No.6 within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Liberty is
reserved to respondent No.6-Wakf Board to follow the
applicable law and due procedure of law if at all it has any
right, title or interest in the said property for inserting of
the name in the Records of Rights.
16. Learned HCGP is directed to communicate this
order to the Regional Commissioner, Deputy
Commissioner and Tahsildar within the jurisdiction of this
Court so that these kind of orders are not passed putting
innocent parties at risk behind their back.
17. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed.”
5. The aforesaid orders passed by this Court in Chand
Sab’s case and M.Ravindra Reddy‘s case supra, are
directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the instant
case and consequently, the present petition also deserves to
be allowed and disposed of in terms of the orders passed in
the aforesaid petitions.
6. It is also relevant to state that though the name of
the petitioner appears in Column Nos. 9 and 12 of his
respective RTCs in relation to the respective subject land,
respondent Nos.2 to 5 have purported to insert the name of
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024
respondent No.6 in Column No.11, without notifying or
providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the
petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion
that the alleged entry in Column No.11 showing the name of
respondent No.6 deserves to be set aside and the matter be
remitted back to respondent Nos.3 to 5 for reconsideration
afresh in accordance with law.
7. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed and disposed of
in terms of the orders passed by this Court in the
cases of Chand Sab vs. State of Karnataka &
others – W.P.No.202965/2022 dated
06.01.2023 and M.Ravindra Reddy vs. State of
Karnataka & others – W.P.No.200340/2021
dated 23.02.2021.
– 10 –
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024
(ii) The impugned entry in Column No.11
showing the name of the respondent No.6 in
relation to the subject land bearing Survey
No.309/*/hissa 3 measuring 06 acre 04 guntas
situated at Balaganur Village, Hobli, Talikoti, Taluk:
Talikoti, Dist: Vijayapura, is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to
respondent Nos.3 to 5 for reconsideration afresh in
accordance with law.
(iv) Respondent Nos.3 to 5 shall notify the
petitioner and respondent No.6 and reconsider the
matter afresh after providing sufficient and
reasonable opportunity to all the parties and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(v) Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to
delete the name of respondent No.6 in Column
No.11 of the RTCs in relation to the subject land
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
– 11 –
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9938
WP No. 203776 of 2024
(vi) Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to
conclude the proceedings within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6