FARUKH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court invoking Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash the order at Annexure-A, dtd. 24/3/2022, passed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner; the order at Annexure-B, dtd. 24/3/2021, passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner; & the order at Annexure-C, dtd. 26/9/2019, passed by respondent No.3 - the Tahshildar.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the land bearing R.S. No.300 measuring 4 acres 27 gutnas of Kamalapur, Dharwad. It is his case that originally, the said land belonged to his father; after the death of his father, the petitioner had succeeded to the same. Respondent No.5 on the strength of the general power of attorney allegedly executed by the petitioner, had got a sale deed executed in his favour on 3/9/2014. Thereafter on 8/5/2015, he had executed a sale deed in respect of the land in dispute in faovur of respondent No.4. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No.443/2014 against respondent Nos.4 & 5 with the prayer to declare his title in respect of the suit schedule property and also to declare the sale deeds dtd. 3/9/2014 & 8/5/2015 are null and void. The said suit was decreed by the jurisdictional Civil Court by judgment and decree dtd. 31/3/2017. Respondent No.4 had challenged the said judgment and decree in R.A. No.225/2017 and the said appeal was dismissed on 26/7/2018 and it is not in dispute that the said judgment and decree has attained finality. The petitioner thereafter had made an application to transfer the entries in the revenue records of the land in question in his favour on the basis of the decree obtained by him in O.S. No.443/2014. However, the Tahshildar has rejected his claim and the said order of the Tahshildar, dtd. 26/9/2019, vide Annexure-C has been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures-B & A respectively. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Civil Courts have declared his title in respect of the land in question and also have declared that the sale deeds made in favour of respondent Nos.4 & 5, dtd. 3/9/2014 and 8/5/2015 are null and void, the revenue authorities have refused to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records of the land in question.