1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

WRIT APPEAL NO. 200233/2019 (KLR-RR-SUR)

Between:

1.

Jaleel Sab

S/o. Murtuza Khadri

Age 62 years

Occ. Agriculture

R/o. Sastapur

Tq. Basavakalyan

Dist. Bidar.

2.

Maheboob Sab

S/o. late Khasimsab

Age 44 years

Occ. Agriculture

R/o. Sastapur

Tq. Basavakalyan

Dist. Bidar.

3.

Tablez Ahmed

S/o. late Mehatab Sab

Aged about 42 years

Occ. Agriculture

R/o. Sastapur

2

Tq. Basavakalyan

Dist. Bidar.

... Appellants

(By Sri. Shivakumar Kalloor, Advocate)

And:

1.

The Deputy Commissioner

Bidar, D.C. Office

Bidar - 585 401.

2.

The Assistant Commissioner

Basavakalyan Mini

Vidhana Soudha

Tq. Basavakalyan

Dist. Bidar - 585 401.

3.

The Tahsildar

Basavakalyan Tahsil Office

Tq. Basavakalyan

Dist. Bidar - 585 401.

4.

The Assistant Director

Of Land Records

Basavakalyan Mini

Vidhana Soudha

Tq. Basavakalyan

Dist. Bidar - 585 401.

... Respondents

(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA)

This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of

Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the

impugned order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 201863/2017 and etc.

3

This appeal coming on for Orders this day, N.K.

SUDHINDRARAO, J. delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This writ appeal is filed against the order passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 201863/2017

dated 04.09.2017.

2. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment,

the parties are referred in the original rankings.

3. Petitioners seek to bifurcate the lands in their

occupation and possession by holding proper survey of

lands located in the village boundaries of Sastapur,

Khanapur and Tripurant.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that

petitioners are in possession of the lands from times

immemorial; the revenue records are not properly

maintained by recording the survey number, extent,

ownership, other rights etc. It is further submitted that

their

names

were

reflected

in

Khasara

Pahani.

4

Petitioners made representation for holding survey and

to identify the boundary and no orders were passed on

the said representations and hence, petitioners had

sought for a mandamus.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners/appellants

submits that the Government is under duty to verify,

measure and define the land which is in possession of

the petitioners/appellants and fix boundaries as well. In

this connection respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on one hand and

respondent No. 4 on the other have legal and legitimate

duty. In the impugned order learned Single Judge has

also observed that according to respondent Nos. 1 to 4

the land in question is government land and the same

requires to be set aside.

6.

Learned

Additional

Government

Advocate

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 opposes the prayer

made by the petitioners/appellants.

5

7.

The

Deputy

Commissioner,

Assistant

Commissioner, Tahsildar and Assistant Director, Land

Records, are respondent Nos. 1 to 4 respectively.

Respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit stating that

annexures A and B filed by the petitioners/appellants

are not record of rights having survey numbers, name of

owner etc.

8. Record of rights, as observed by the learned

Single Judge, speaks that petitioners/appellants are in

illegal possession over the disputed lands. Further page

Nos. 35 and 36 to the appeal memorandum are the

RTCs which are totally blank. The name of either

petitioners or Government is not shown in the said

documents. As such the Government cannot claim that

the land belongs to it. RTC is a comprehensive record

evidencing the ownership and possession on the

revenue side. Various columns in the RTC denote for

relevant identity like (1) survey number (