GANGAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dtd. 18/3/2022 at Annexure-N issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Doddaballapura Taluk, wherein the application filed by the petitioners for conducting hadbasth of the land in question has been declined for the reasons stated therein.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is clear from the impugned endorsement that the contesting respondent herein i.e., respondent No.6 is said to have given a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District stating that a suit is pending consideration before the Court of the Civil Judge in O.S.No.217/2017 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura. Learned counsel for the petitioners has today filed a memo along with copy of the order dtd. 31/10/2022, whereby the suit in O.S.No.217/2017 was dismissed while allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) r/w Sec. 4(1) and (2) of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the reasons assigned in the impugned endorsement that a suit is pending consideration before the civil court and therefore the hadbasth should not be done, cannot be sustained.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that he has entered into an agreement with the petitioners to purchase the land in question. Learned counsel submits that late Sri Bylappa, husband of petitioner No.1 had filed W.P.No.22043/2016 aggrieved by some of the conditions imposed in the sale permission granted by the State Government in terms of sec. 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact the writ petition was filed by the 6th respondent in the name of Sri Bylappa, since the 6th respondent intended to purchase the land in question by securing a sale certificate from the State Government.