S.CHALUVEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dtd. 5/12/2022 issued by the respondent-Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners of lands bearing Sy.No.155/1, measuring 3 acres and 13 guntas and Sy.No.159/1, measuring 1 acre 31 guntas, both situated at Hebbalu village, Mysuru Taluk. The lands are now within the limits of Mysuru Mahanagara Palike. It is contended that the father of the first petitioner Late Sri.Seetharamegowda filed a declaration under Sec. 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in the year 1976. The competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner passed an order under Ss. 10(1) and (3) holding certain portion of the land in question as excess land and forfeited the same to the Government. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the Regional Commissioner in Appeal No.11/1988-89. The Regional Commissioner is said to have allowed the appeal while setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, but remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. However, in the year 1999, the Urban Land Ceiling Act, was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is contended that the proceeding in respect of the lands in question stood abated.

(3.) It is further contended that however, there was interference at the hands of the revenue officials and therefore, two suits were instituted by the sons of said Sri.Seetharamegowda viz., S.Ramegowda and S.Chaluvegowda in O.S.Nos.366/2002 and 367/2002. The prayers in the said suits were for declaration of rights of the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and all persons claiming through the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The two suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by judgment and decree dtd. 8/2/2021. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the respondent-Tahsildar to make the revenue entries in their favour in terms of the declaration made by the civil court.