M FARMAN ALI S/O. LATE M ABDUL AZEEZ SAB v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/84530/2013 · 2025-03-06
M G Uma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3811 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3811 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4349 WP No. 84530 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 84530 OF 2013 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. M. FARMAN ALI S/O. LATE M. ABDUL AZEEZ SAB, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H. NO. 5/1, WARD NO. 23, NEAR DEEWANE MASTAN VALI DARGHA COWL BAZAR, MAIN ROAD, BELLARY, TQ and DIST: BELLARY.
2.
SMT. ZULEKHA BEE W/O. M. FARMAN ALI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H NO. 5/1, WARD NO. 23, NEAR DEEWANE MASTAN VALI DARGHA COWL BAZAR, MAIN ROAD, BELLARY, TQ and DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. S. YADRAMI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4349 WP No. 84530 of 2013
2.
THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, AND SURVEY SETTLEMENT NORTH DIVISION, BELGAUM DIST: BELGAUM.
3.
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT SURVEY SETTLEMENT, BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY.
4.
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT SURVEY SETTLEMENT BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY.
5.
THE COMMISSIONER BELLARY MAHANAGAR PALIKE, BELLARY DISTRICT: BELLARY.
6.
SRI. K. MOHAMMED RIYAS S/O. LATE NOOR MOHAMMED, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO. 41/572-82 KOTTA PET, NEAR RIYTHA BAZAR, KURNOOL CITY [AP].
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARSHA DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6;
SRI.T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 23.07.2013 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER HIS NO.REV/SR-12/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ORDER DATED 29.11.2012 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER NO.BHU.U.NI/THA/APPEAL/4/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-N.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4349 WP No. 84530 of 2013
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.07.2013 passed by the second respondent, produced as per ANNEXURE-P and order dated 29.11.2012, passed by the 3rd respondent produced as per ANNEXURE-N.
2. Heard Sri.Girish Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Harsh Desai, learned counsel for caveator respondent No.6, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the materials on record.
3. On going through the impugned orders, it is clear that the sale deed on which reliance was placed was in respect of T.S.No.950, and not in respect of T.S.No.952. It is stated that petitioner No.2 is claiming right over the property under the Will, but it was in respect of T.S.No.952. Under such
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4349 WP No. 84530 of 2013
circumstances, the impugned orders came to be passed dismissing the revision preferred before the Joint Director of Land Records, Belagavi and confirming the
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to ADLR, Bellary to enter the name of Karnool Mahamadsab S/o Karnool Moosasab in the revenue records. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as both of them have assigned valid reasons in support of their findings.
4. It is pertinent to note that Annexure-A is the copy of the Sale Deed dated 11.02.1963, said to have been executed in the name of father of the petitioner. The schedule appended to the sale deed only refers to Municipal Ward No.23 without there being any door number or any other number to identify the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4349 WP No. 84530 of 2013
in a position to substantiate the grounds made out in the petition. Hence, petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE
gab,VB CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14