Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
Hanmanthappa S/o Bandappa Tadakal – Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Commissioner, Yadgir – Respondent
W.P. No. 200378 of 2018
Decided On : 27-06-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Naresh V. Kulkarni.
For the Respondents: Ambika S. Patil, Gourish S. Khashampur, Ganesh S. Kalaburagi.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Revenue records were mutated in his name - Signatures found in the vakalath as well as the affidavit filed in this writ petition - Alleged affidavit, revenue records of property in question were transferred in name of respondent - He submits that respondent no. 1 had no authority or jurisdiction to change revenue records of the property in question on basis of an affidavit produced by respondent no. 3 even without issuing notice to petitioner - Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of house property case that said property originally belonged to his ancestors and after their death, revenue records were mutated in his name and he was paying property tax - Petitioner had to move to purpose of the education of his children and at time of shifting he had asked his distant relativet take care of property in question - Taking undue advantage of the absence of petitioner, respondent no. 3-Smt. claiming herself to be daughter of petitioner, had created an affidavit in name of petitioner to the effect that he had no objection to change revenue entries in respect of property in question in favour – Held, Respondents 3 to 5 has strenuously contended that he may be given an opportunity to produce necessary documents before respondent no. 2 to prove his title - No statement of objection has been filed by respondents 3 to 5 before this Court to establish their title in respect of property in question. Though learned Counsel for the said respondents has submitted that the real owner of the property in question has executed a registered Will in favour of respondents 3 to 5, he has not produced copy of the said document before this Court - Even if it is presumed that Will has been executed in favour of respondents 3 to 5 in respect of property in question, the revenue authorities cannot take the said document into consideration and change entries in the revenue records of the land in question - Court and seek necessary reliefs and it is needless to state that entries which are restored in the name of petitioner pursuant to this order will be subject to the outcome of such civil dispute if initiated by respondents 3 to 5. Since the entries in revenue records have been changed based on an affidavit, which prima facie appears to be a fraudulent document, orders passed at Annexure C and D1 and the impugned endorsement issued at Annexure-G cannot be sustained - Writ petition is allowed.
ORDER:
1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
1. Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order passed by respondent no. 1 at Annexure-C in file No. PURASABHE:V:200:2000-01/2535-36 dated 25.11.2000 and Annexure-D1 in file No. PURASABHE:VARGA:714:2001-02/1607-08 dated 02.09.2002 only to the extent of House property bearing CMC No. 5-5-91/A (Old) and 5-5-84 (New) situated near Ashoka Lodge, Station Area, Yadgir, and restore the name of the petitioner in the municipality records.
2. Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order at Annexure-G passed by the respondent no. 2 in file No. SUM/KUM/PRA/AGU/PURASABHE/261/2017-18/11167 dated 14.12.2017.
3. To pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the house property bearing CMC No. 5-5-91/A (Old) and 5-5-84 (New) situated near Ashoka Lodge, Station Area, Yadgir. It is his specific case that the said property originally belonged to his ancestors and after their death, the revenue records were mutated in his name and he was paying property tax from the year 1994-95 to 1999-2000. Thereafter, in the year 2001, the petitioner had to move to Kalaburagi for the purpose of the education of his children and at the time of shifting he had asked his distant relative Smt. Annapurnamma to take care of the property in question. Taking undue advantage of the absence of the petitioner, respondent no. 3-Smt. Annapurnamma claiming herself to be the daughter of the petitioner, had created an affidavit in the name of the petitioner to the effect that he had no objection to change the revenue entries in respect of the property in question in favour of the said Annapurnamma.
3. The Chief Executive Officer of City Municipal Council, Yadgir, based on such an affidavit, had ordered to delete the name of the petitioner and enter the name of respondent no. 3-Smt. Annapurnamma in the revenue records of the property in question. It appears that subsequently Smt. Annapurnamma has executed another affidavit for transfer of the said property in favour of her son - respondent no. 4 herein and based on such affidavit, the Chief Executive Officer of City Municipal Counsel, Yadgir, has ordered to transfer the property in the name of respondent no. 4. Petitioner, after coming to know about the same, had filed a revision before respondent no. 2 who has dismissed the same vide impugned order at Annexure-G on the ground that since the dispute is civil in nature, the petitioner was required to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of his dispute. Being aggrieved by such an endorsement dated 14.12.2017 issued by respondent no. 2 vide Annexure-G, the petitioner is before this Court. The contesting respondents who have entered appearance have not filed their statement of objections till date.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the material on record would go to show that the revenue records of disputed property, earlier stood in the name of the petitioner herein. Only on the basis of the alleged affidavit, the revenue records of the property in question were transferred in the name of respondent no. 3. He submits that respondent no. 1 had no authority or jurisdiction to change the revenue records of the property in question on the basis of an affidavit produced by respondent no. 3 even without issuing notice to the petitioner. He submits that the said affidavit which is at Annexure-B is a fraudulent document and the signature found in the said document is not of the petitioner. He submits that respondent no. 3 is not the daughter of the petitioner herein and she is only his distant relative. However, in the affidavit, it is mentioned that she is the daughter of the petitioner.
5. He submits that on the basis of the affidavit, the revenue records of the property in question could not have been changed in f
