1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT APPEAL NO. 760 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUMATHI

W/O CHANDRAHASA BAI

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

R/AT BOLODY, KEDAMBADY VILLAGE

PUTTUR TALUK,

D K DISTRICT-574 201

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.MOHIDEEN ARAFAT, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI.SACHIN S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI PURUSHTOM RAI

S/O SUBBANNA RAI

AGED MAJOR

R/AT BOODIYAR IN KURIYA VILLAGE AND POST

PUTTUR, D K DISTRICT - 574 201

2. TAHSILDAR

PUTTUR, D K DISTRICT - 574 201

3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS

MANGALORE, D K DISTRICT - 574 201

2

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

MANGALORE, D K DISTRICT-574 201

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR.S, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE

WRIT PETITION 4522/2016 (KKLR-RR/SUR) DATED 23.03.2021.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 09.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

JUDGMENT

THIS DAY,

SACHIN

SHANKAR

MAGADUM

J.,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant assailing

the correctness of the order dated 23.03.2021 passed in

W.P.No.4522/2016.

2.

The subject matter of the appeal are agricultural

lands bearing Sy.Nos.148/1P and 147/1P. The case of the

appellant before the learned Single Judge was that her

holdings were regularized by Akrama Sakrama Committee and

accordingly, plotting was done. The appellant claims that in

terms of the regularization, she is in enjoyment of the land in

3

question. The respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the hissa

proceedings (phodi) preferred a revision under Section 56 of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by claiming that he is the

owner of the adjoining land and therefore, he has got kumki

rights over the disputed lands.

3.

The respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner having

examined the rival contentions has set aside the hissa

proceedings done by the respondent No.2/Tahsildar and the

matter is remitted for fresh survey of the lands. The said

order was questioned by the present appellant herein before

the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge having

examined the rival contentions has concurred with the remand

order passed by the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner.

The learned Single Judge has taken note of the observation

made by the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner in regard

to denial of opportunity to the respondent No.1 before

effecting sub-division. It is in this background that the

learned Single Judge was of the view that it would be in the

4

interest of the parties to get the land resurveyed. The learned

Single Judge reserving liberty to the parties to place all

relevant documents to substantiate their claim has confirmed

the remand order passed by the respondent No.4/Deputy

Commissioner.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties. Perused the order under challenge.

5.

The appellant is asserting right over the lands on

the ground that the unauthorized occupation was regularized

by the Akrama Sakrama Committee. The respondent No.1,

however, claims that he is the owner of the adjoining lands

and therefore, he has got kumki rights over the disputed

lands. The respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner having

verified the records has found that the sub-division is effected

without notifying all the beneficiaries. The respondent No.4

having taken note of this material aspect has set aside the

phodi proceedings passed in SRT.SR 287/2003-04 and MR

5

No.75/2004-05 with a direction to re-do the entire process by

resurveying and while doing so, the respondent No.4/Deputy

Commissioner has directed that the resurvey has to be done in

terms of the Akrama Sakrama sketch issued in NCR SR

358/98-99 by issuing notice to all the land holders.

6.

If

th