KEMPANNA Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR SUNNAKAL BEEDI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 27.08.2009 impugned at Annexure -A to the petition. The brief facts are that the land bearing Sy. No. 258/2 situate at Mustoor village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk, measuring an extent of 38 guntas is said to have been inherited by the petitioner. The issue presently relates to the extent of the property that is said to have been included in the sale deed dated 11.09.1964. It is in that regard, the order at Annexure -A dated 27.08.2009 is passed. By the said order, the District Registrar has ordered that the entries made in the Office of the Sub -Registrar relating to the said document dated 11.09.1964 be corrected by indicating the extent of the land as 38 guntas instead of 32 guntas as indicated therein. The reasons stated for the same is that the original document i.e., the sale deed dated 11.09.1964 contains the extent of 38 guntas and the same be reflected in the Register.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the said order is not only without opportunity to the petitioner while directing such correction by the order dated 27.08.2009 in respect of a sale deed dated 11.09.1964 but in between the said period, when there were proceedings relating to revenue entries and the nature of enjoyment of the property has been made in a different manner such order is not justified. In that regard, the learned counsel would also refer to the earlier correction made by the order dated 23.09.1997 at Annexure -B when the revenue entries showing 32 guntas in respect of the private respondents herein and 6 guntas in favour of the petitioner which had been corrected and restored. It is therefore contended that when there were disputes and the petitioner was entitled to the said 6 guntas of land, by the impugned order such right could not have been affected by the official respondents by directing that the correction be made for the entire 38 guntas.

(3.) IN this regard, I am of the opinion that such procedure need not be adverted to in the instant facts since at this juncture, there are certain other developments which could be noticed. It is seen that, when the petitioner was before this Court and this Court while disposing of W.P. No. 16605/2005 on 29.06.2005 had taken note of the claim being made by the petitioner to 6 guntas of land relating to revenue entry, the said aspect becomes relevant. It is the very same 6 guntas which would now get incorporated in the Register as ordered at Annexure -A. This Court though had taken note of the contention put forth by the petitioner that he is claiming right to the extent of 6 guntas and seeking that the revenue entries be maintained in that regard in his name had ultimately come to the conclusion that the said issue can only be decided in a civil suit and as such had reserved liberty to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 267/2008 and a copy of the plaint is available at Annexure -H to the petition. Therefore, in a circumstance where the petitioner is before the Civil Court and the contention of the petitioner and the contesting respondent with regard to the ownership rights over the actual extent of land in Sy. No. 258/2 would be decided by the Civil Court, any decision to be made by the District Registrar on that aspect even if the matter is remanded would be of no consequence whatsoever. Hence, I am of the opinion that appropriate course would be to direct the Civil Court not to take into consideration the order dated 27.08.2009 or the subsequent correction made in the Register maintained in the office of the Sub -Registrar based on the said order. The Civil Court shall consider the evidence that is placed before it, independent of the said orders and would thereafter come to a conclusion with regard to the right relating to the extent of the property. Needless to mention that if the petitioner succeeds in the Civil suit certainly, the necessary entries would have to be reversed in the appropriate documents as well as in the revenue records With the said clarification and direction, the petition stands disposed of.