TANVEER KHAJI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 23rd June, 2017 passed by the second respondent herein in Revision Petition No.9/2016-17 produced at Annexure-L and also order dated 29th August, 2016 passed by the third respondent herein in No.KLR:M:104:2012-13.

(2.) Brief facts of the case for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of land bearing survey No.59 of Chittapur, Lingsugur Taluk, Raichur District measuring 35 acre 34 guntas and the petitioner has stated that the aforementioned lands are the inam lands and the ancestors of the petitioner were the inamdars of the land. It is further stated that after the promulgation of Hyderabad Inam Abolition Act, 1955, these lands were vested with the State Government and accordingly, the names of the ancestors of the petitioner were shown as Inamdars in the Record of Rights. It is further stated that the State Government has granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of Certain Inam Abolition Act, 1977 by order dated 05th December, 1988 as per Annexure-C. Pursuant to the order passed by the Land Tribunal in Inam proceedings produced at Annexure-C, the revenue records were mutated in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that pursuant to the complaint lodged by certain persons, who are acting inimical to the interest of the petitioner, with the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, the second respondent, by letter dated 27th June, 2012, directed the third respondent herein to take the custody of the lands in question till the completion of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, as per Annexure-F. Pursuant to the same, the third respondent herein has conducted proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and after considering the materials on record, by its order dated 29th August, 2016, allowed the claim made by the fourth respondent herein against the respondent therein (Shri Y. Krishna S/o Suryanarayana), and accordingly, set aside the earlier order mentioning the name of the petitioner in the Record of Rights till the completion of Land Tribunal proceedings. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed Revision Petition under Section 136(3) of the Act before the second respondent herein and the second respondent, by order dated 23rd June, 2017 sustained the order passed by the third respondent and accordingly rejected the Revision Petition preferred by the Revision Petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings.

(3.) Shri J. Augustin, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities are contrary to law, as the petitioner herein has sold the land bearing survey number 56, in favour of the Revision Petitioner before the second respondent herein (Shri Y. Krishna). However, the petitioner has retained Survey No.59 with him and without considering the same, the Revenue Authorities have changed the mutation entries as well as conducted the proceedings even in respect of Survey No.59, apart from Survey No.56 of Chittapur village, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard in the matter and therefore, he contended that the impugned order passed by the second and third respondents are liable to be quashed.