CHANDRAKANTH Vs. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against the impugned circulars dated 29.05.2010 at Annexure-H, dated 04.01.2010 at Annexure-H1 and dated 02.04.2011 at Annexure-H2 passed by the Chief Secretary Revenue Department, Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Bengaluru and Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi, making entry in the name of Hazrath Khaja Bande Nawaz Darga in the Revenue Records pertaining to Sy.No.116 to the extent of 4 acres 13 guntas; Sy.No.114 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas and in Sy.No.115 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situated at Badepur village, Tq. and Dist.Kalaburagi.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that while the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question in favor of Sri Shivasharanappa S/o Chandramappa Kumasi, Sri Shivaraya S/o Chandramappa Khanapur and Sri Revansiddappa Kashappa by separate orders dated 09.06.1977, 22.08.1988 and 09.01.1981 respectively and thereafter their respective names were entered in the revenue records. Further, after the petitioner purchased the lands in question from the successors of the original owners, the name of the petitioner came to be entered in the revenue records. It is further contended that on the basis of a circular dated 29.05.2010 at Annexure-H series, issued by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Karnataka, the name of the petitioner has been removed and in his place the name of Hazrath Khaja Bande Nawaz Darga has been entered with respect to the lands in question in the revenue records as seen at Annexure-J.

(3.) In this regard, learned counsel brings to the notice of this court a decision of the Division Bench of this court in W.P.Nos.200085-86/2016 which was disposed of on 10.07.2019. It is seen from the said decision where under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this court has directed the respondent No.1 to reconsider the entries in the revenue records after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, notifying the interested persons and thereafter it was directed that the Tahsildar has to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this court another decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Syed Sadiq Hussaini and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.201620/2017 which was decided on 13.12.2017. In that case, the order of the Tahsildar was set aside while remitting the matter back for reconsideration at the hands of the Tahsildar after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons.