AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Dr. Justice K. Bhakthavatsala
Petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the letter bearing No. Purusabe : Humnabad : CR: 1995-96, dated 28.10.1995., on the file of respondent No. 7 at Annexure-L, the order bearing No. LND/CR.148/2010-11/2076-2077 dated 04.07.2011 on the file of Respondent No. 8 at Annexure-R; mutation order bearing No. 3/2011-12 dated 04.07.2011 at Annexure-S and direct the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 to restore the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner to the extent of 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 208/1, situated at Humnabad, Bidar district. It is the case of the petitioner that one Madukar was owner of land bearing Sy. No. 208/2/3 to the extent of 3 acres having acquired the same as per decree passed in O.S. No. 196/1991 and the revenue ensuring was also effected. The said Madukar sold 20 guntas of land in the above said survey number to one Mohammed Gousuddin under a registered sale deed dated 17.07.1999. Later on it was sold to one Syed Alemullah under a registered sale deed in the year 1999. He gave an application to the Revenue Authority for mutation and accordingly by order dated 31.10.1999, mutation entry was made in MR No. 28 and renumbered the land as Sy. No. 208/2/A3. The said owner Syed Alemullah made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of 20 guntas of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 09.12.2003, ordered for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes. On 25.07.2008 the above said owner sold 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 208/2/A3 to the petitioner under a registered sale deed and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contended that 20 guntas of land was not donated to the Fire Station but the fire force authorities claim right over 20 guntas of land and therefore, the petitioner has got issued a legal notice dated 07.09.2012 to respondent Nos. 1 to 5, calling upon them not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the land in question. In the reply given by respondent No. 5/Regional Fire Officer has stated that they have nothing to do with 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 208/8/1. It is also contended that respondent No. 5/Regional Fire Officer by his letter dated 03.04.2009 made a request the Tahasildar Humnabad to survey the land in Sy. No. 208/1 and as per survey report and sketch dt 4.4.2009 20 guntas of land is vacant and in that regard an application for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes had been made. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for in the writ petitions.
Learned Government Advocate submits that on the basis of unanimous complaint dated 14.02.2011 received by the Assistant Commissioner, Basavakalyan notice was issued to all the concerned parties including the petitioner and the order dated 4.7.2011 (at Annexure-R) u/s 136(2) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act was passed and there is no merit in the petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 8/Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order at Annexure-R, without notice and therefore, he has approached this Court instead of approaching the Deputy Commissioner.
The petitioner claims that he has purchased 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 208/2A3 under a registered sale deed dated 25.07.2008. He has sent a legal notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 u/s 80 of CPC. Respondent No. 5/Regional Fire Officer has sent his reply dated 17.09.2012 at Annexure-K stating that the fire force department is nothing to do with 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 208/8/1. The petitioner claims that he has purchased 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 208/2A3. As per the letter dated 28.10.1995, CMC Humnabad has intimated the Tahasildar Humnabad at (Annexure-L) stating that 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No. 208/1 was donated for Fire Force Department. But, the petitioner claims that he has purchased 20 guntas of land in Sy.No. 208/2A3 under a registered sale deed on 25.07.2008, from previous owner.
In view of the above facts of the case, the petitioner either should approach the Deputy Commissioner u/s 136(3) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act or the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. I see no good ground to entertain the writ petitions. In the result, the petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate cause of action in accordance with law.
Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned High Court Government Advocate is granted three weeks time to file a memo of appearance for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9.