DUNDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum-respondent No. 4 dated 20/02/2001 as par Annexure "e" allowing the revision by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Balgaum District, as par Annexure "d" dated 26/06/1999 and directing that the name of respondent No. 5 shall be entered in respect of his share in the survey records.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition that the petitioners and respondent No. 5 are the sons of Sri vishwanath Pattanshetty and Sri Vishvranath Pattanshetty during his life time, due to old age, appointed panchas for effecting partition amongst his sons. The panchas prepared a list dividing the properties amongst the petitioners and respondent No. 5 as per Annexure "b". The said vishwanath Pattanshetty died in the year 1989 and the said partition as per Annexure "b" was not at all effected at any time. In the year 1996, respondent No. 5 made an application before the second respondent-Assistant Director of Land Records, to enter his name in the concerned records based on the said document Annexure "b" and the said application was rejected by order dated 20/08/1996. Being aggrieved by the said order, the fifth respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Belgaum and the said appeal was allowed and remitted the matter to the Assistant Director of Land Records, Belgaum, After remand, the Assistant Director of Land Records passed an order as per Annexure "c" rejecting the application filed by the fifth respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 5 filed revision before the Joint director of Land Records-fourth respondent and the fourth respondent by order dated 20/02/2001 held that the partition made was not in accordance with law and shares have not been properly calculated and further held that the entries in respect of certain other properties had already made and accordingly allowed the Revision Petition and directed to enter the name of the fifth respondent in the concerned record.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the same, this writ Petition is filed.