Document Text Contents
Page 2
5. The plaintiff humbly submits that, Ramachandra Rao s/o Shyamarao got the
suit schedule property from one Sheebaiah through registered gift deed.
Sheebaiah Gifted land consisting of Thopu (Trees) for Dharma Karya transferring
absolute interest to donee. Sheebaiah & Venkatachalaiah got suit schedule
property land from sale deed executed by Tulasamma w/o Narasingarao for
fifty rupees each. Later Venkatachalaiah executed his share to Sheebaiah. By
the gift deed Sheebaiah transferred land to Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao. The
erst while owners as donee’s enjoyed the land from 1886 without any obstruction
from any authorities until they legally transferred the land for sale to this
plaintiff. The mother deed that is Gift deed executed in 1886 is produced for
the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.
6. The plaintiff humbly submits that, the suit schedule property came under
maralenahalli survey number 28 by then in 1886 the total extent of that survey
number 26 acres 7 guntas present extent is 18 acres 08.19.21 guntas, the
remaining extent is merged in neighbouring grama that is lingapura, to obtain
those relevant records plaintiff and her vendors have approached 4th
defendant’s, they are repeatedly issuing endorsements about the non-
availability of old revenue records. In totality suit schedule property
originally formed out of maralenahalli grama which is adjacent to the border of
lingapura grama. Previously vendors of this plaintiff had title and possession
to maralenahalli and lingapura survey number in the suit schedule property. To
evidence the fact phanies of survey number 28 and list is produced for kind
perusal of this Hon’ble court.
7. The plaintiff humbly submits that, The suit schedule property is Hiduvali
land with private rights, the said land was cultivated with trees, the said
trees were used for Dharma Karya by the title holders and the revenue exemption
was obtained by the erstwhile owners and by then it was treated as Dharmadhaya
Inam land. Owner was given as Inamdar status. The land is not a granted land.
Private land with inam concessions. Later the same was converted from inam
patta to sarkari patta by quoting the name of occupant as THOPU in the oldest
revenue record available in the form of Khethuvaru Pathrike. Extract of
KETHUVARU PATRIKE is herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable
Court. Although 1886 title deed confers absolute title to donee, the revenue
records were not properly entered from earlier time.
8. The plaintiff humbly submits that, The oldest revenue document that is
available with the revenue department is ‘quit rent register’, the copy of said
register although with 4th defendant and the entries were commented by the
predecessor officers of 4th defendant positions, the similar same revenue old
records were repeatedly destroyed by defendants officers to help ill-conceived
plans of politicians and land maphia elements. In quit rent register there is
no fixation of either rent or Revenue over the land, only previous Revenue is
shown, The title deed number is shown all these shows that the said land is
held on the basis of title deed, previous to that inam grant it was Hiduvali
land with land Revenue, Inam was granted not as land grant, but as revenue
exemption for up keep of Thopu (Trees) which was considered by erstwhile
administrators that growing trees as shelter to travelers is a DHARMA karya.
Quit Rent register extract is mis-interpreted by 2nd defendant out of ill-will
and disrespect towards law.
9. The plaintiff humbly submits that, Another oldest document available with
Revenue department that is 4th defendant is ‘PHAISAL PATRIKE’, a copy of it is
available with plaintiff. Defendant’s are trying to destroy old records just to
satisfy some politically motivated persons. In the said document ‘DHARMADHA
Page 11
6. I Humbly submit that, the suit schedule property came under maralenahalli
survey number 28 by then in 1886 the total extent of that survey number 26
acres 7 guntas present extent is 18 acres 08.19.21 guntas, the remaining extent
is merged in neighbouring grama that is lingapura, to obtain those relevant
records plaintiff and her vendors have approached 4th defendant’s, they are
repeatedly issuing endorsements about the non-availability of old revenue
records. In totality suit schedule property originally formed out of
maralenahalli grama which is adjacent to the border of lingapura grama.
Previously vendors of me had title and possession to maralenahalli and
lingapura survey number in the suit schedule property. To evidence the fact
phanies of survey number 28 and list is produced for kind perusal of this
Hon’ble court.
7. I Humbly submit that, The suit schedule property is Hiduvali land with private
rights, the said land was cultivated with trees, the said trees were used for
Dharma Karya by the title holders and the revenue exemption was obtained by the
erstwhile owners and by then it was treated as Dharmadhaya Inam land. Owner was
given as Inamdar status. The land is not a granted land. Private land with inam
concessions. Later the same was converted from inam patta to sarkari patta by
quoting the name of occupant as THOPU in the oldest revenue record available in
the form of Khethuvaru Pathrike. Extract of KETHUVARU PATRIKE is herewith
produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court. Although 1886 title
deed confers absolute title to donee, the revenue records were not properly
entered from earlier time.
8. I Humbly submit that, The oldest revenue document that is available with the
revenue department is ‘quit rent register’, the copy of said register although
with 4th defendant and the entries were commented by the predecessor officers of
4th defendant positions, the similar same revenue old records were repeatedly
destroyed by defendants officers to help ill-conceived plans of politicians and
land maphia elements. In quit rent register there is no fixation of either rent
or Revenue over the land, only previous Revenue is shown, The title deed number
is shown all these shows that the said land is held on the basis of title deed,
previous to that inam grant it was Hiduvali land with land Revenue, Inam was
granted not as land grant, but as revenue exemption for up keep of Thopu
(Trees) which was considered by erstwhile administrators that growing trees as
shelter to travelers is a DHARMA karya. Quit Rent register extract is mis-
interpreted by 2nd defendant out of ill-will and disrespect towards law.
9. I Humbly submit that, Another oldest document available with Revenue department
that is 4th defendant is ‘PHAISAL PATRIKE’, a copy of it is available with
plaintiff. Defendant’s are trying to destroy old records just to satisfy some
politically motivated persons. In the said document ‘DHARMADHA THOPU’ is
rounded off and name of ‘Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao No: 90/1886’ was entered,
such old records certified copy was obtained by vendors were purposefully
destroyed by the 2 to 4 defendants. The copy is produced for kind perusal of
Hon’ble court.
10. I Humbly submit that, Ever since from the date of acquisition of title and
possession through the registered sale deed, iam continuously enjoying the
suit Schedule Property uninterruptedly. Iam making the payment of taxes to the
authorities concerned in respect of the suit schedule property periodically.
Except me no other person/s having any manner of right, title or interest much-
less possession over the Schedule property. The documents concerned in respect
of the payment of upto date taxes to the authorities concerned and the
Page 12
Extract of Mutation Register are herewith produced for the kind perusal of this
Honourable Court.
11. I Humbly submit that, It is fraudulently tried by enemies of my vendors and
some officers under the defendants to show rights of my vendors ownership
limited to trees over the land, in phani entries. Local officials in collusion
with some politicians, in order to grab my vendors possession and ownership
hatched a plan to start litigation in respect to right over the trees in suit
schedule property. It is my vendors Mr Anandrao who went first to High Court
(WP No: 28816/1996) alleging unauthorized interference by government and
illegal order regarding rights in trees. This fact is overlooked by 2nd
defendant with ulterior motive to satisfy the political land maphia elements
who are posing themselves with desperation in guise of safe guarders of public
property. A copy of the said order in WP No: 28816/1996 is herewith produced
for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.
12. I Humbly submit that, On 18-07-1998 an order was passed in RRT (Dis):65/97-98
by Tahsildar of Tumkur, that is 4th respondent in his quasi judicial capacity
with reasons, the judgement itself is self explanatory as to nature of right
decided. A copy of the said order in RRT (Dis):65/97-98 is herewith produced
for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court. The said order remained
unchallenged by any of the parties in a proper forum, within the prescribed
period. The 2nd defendant used his suo-motto powers of revision only after 3
years of limited period which is highly illegal and needs to be condemned for
non observation of law.
13. I Humbly submit that, The subsequent incumbent 4th defendant in his executive
capacity reports to his superiors that is 2nd defendant by allegating several
points disputing correctness of quasi-judicial decision of his predecessor,
this attitude is illegal and shows some enmity and political motivation behind
such move.
14. I Humbly submit that, 4th defendant in RRT (Dis) 65/97-98 Pronounced orders on
13-07-1998. As per the legal procedure Under Proviso to Section 56(3) of The
Karnataka Land Revenue act, suo-motto Revenue officer can exercise revision
powers only within 3 years from the date of order. For other purposes of
private parties filing Revision Petition 4 months is the limitation prescribed
in Section 56(3). Such Legal provisions were violated in treating the Revision
petition RP 72/2000-01 as maintainable. The 2nd defendant framed a record
showing the maintainability question in fact such order was not passed on that
tampered date. The copy of order sheet shows tampering and fabrication by 2nd
defendant in its page five. A copy of the said order sheet is herewith produced
for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.
15. I Humbly submit that, The 2nd defendant on 03-12-2001 suo motto registered a
case of Revision Petition, without any petition from any parties and treated
some baseless representations as petitions, to claim title on behalf of
government. Neither any representative from government nor any responsible
citizen submitted any records to claim title on behalf of government in the
suo-motto revision petition. The said revision petition is ill-conceived one
just to knock off the property of me. I participated in the said proceedings
with all objections, hoping to get justice done in due course of time.
16. I Humbly submit that, Inspite of contentions and report from Tahsildar 4th
defendant he is neither arraigned as petitioner or some one on behalf
Page 21
consisting of Thopu (Trees) for Dharma Karya transferring absolute interest to
donee. Sheebaiah & Venkatachalaiah got suit schedule property land from
sale deed executed by Tulasamma w/o Narasingarao for fifty rupees each. Later
Venkatachalaiah executed his share to Sheebaiah. By the gift deed Sheebaiah
transferred land to Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao. The erst while owners as
donee’s enjoyed the land from 1886 without any obstruction from any authorities
until they legally transferred the land for sale to me. The mother deed that is
Gift deed executed in 1886 is produced for the kind perusal of this
Honourable Court.
6. I Humbly submit that, 3rd and 4th defendants from time immemorial not maintaining
revenue records of my suit schedule property by following due procedural law,
they are attempting to write words non existing before in place of mine in RTC
maintained by opponents. The representation given by me was rejected without
giving respect towards High Court orders. I found that there is a need for
specific order and hence this application.
7. I Humbly submit that, I and my family members are scared and are suffering
from mental agony. The persons who are supposed to be the protectors/guardians
of public rights themselves prepared to brake/violate the law. Hence having no
other alternative, effective, efficacious, expeditious remedy iam approaching
this Hon’ble Court seeking the protection to my ownership and possession over
the suit schedule property for which i deserve rightly.
8. I Humbly submit that, the prior notice to the 3rd and 4th Defendants may change
the scenario and it may push me into much trouble. Hence i pray for the
dispensation of the prior notice to the Defendants.
9. I Humbly submit that, Though iam a valid purchaser of the Schedule Property
facing threat of dispossession by creation of fake entries in the hands of
these 3rd and 4th Defendants, iam suffering for no fault of mine. My lawful
right, title, interest and possession are being invaded with by the acts of the
Defendants. The act of the Defendants is highly deplorable and should be
checked immediately otherwise it will leads to many complications and
multiplicity of proceedings.
10. I Humbly submit that, After passing of illegal orders by the 2nd defendant
plaintiff approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, through writ proceedings
in WP NO: 11504/2008 (KLR), wherein Hon’ble court has directed this plaintiff
to approach civil court and Hon’ble court also stayed the orders of 2nd
defendant.
11. I respectfully submit that in continuation of above illegal activities of the
Defendants are trying to do the same thing by forcible eviction from the suit
schedule property.
12. In the event of this Application is being rejected I would be put to
irreparable loss and injustice and great hardship would be caused to me. On the
other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the same is
being allowed. Balance of convenience lies with me.
13. In view of the urgency and need of immediate action, I pray this Hon’ble court
to dispense the prior notice of I.A., to the Defendants.
14. In the circumstances, I pray this Hon’ble Court to allow the accompanying
Application in the interest of justice and equity.
5. The plaintiff humbly submits that, Ramachandra Rao s/o Shyamarao got the
suit schedule property from one Sheebaiah through registered gift deed.
Sheebaiah Gifted land consisting of Thopu (Trees) for Dharma Karya transferring
absolute interest to donee. Sheebaiah & Venkatachalaiah got suit schedule
property land from sale deed executed by Tulasamma w/o Narasingarao for
fifty rupees each. Later Venkatachalaiah executed his share to Sheebaiah. By
the gift deed Sheebaiah transferred land to Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao. The
erst while owners as donee’s enjoyed the land from 1886 without any obstruction
from any authorities until they legally transferred the land for sale to this
plaintiff. The mother deed that is Gift deed executed in 1886 is produced for
the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.
6. The plaintiff humbly submits that, the suit schedule property came under
maralenahalli survey number 28 by then in 1886 the total extent of that survey
number 26 acres 7 guntas present extent is 18 acres 08.19.21 guntas, the
remaining extent is merged in neighbouring grama that is lingapura, to obtain
those relevant records plaintiff and her vendors have approached 4th
defendant’s, they are repeatedly issuing endorsements about the non-
availability of old revenue records. In totality suit schedule property
originally formed out of maralenahalli grama which is adjacent to the border of
lingapura grama. Previously vendors of this plaintiff had title and possession
to maralenahalli and lingapura survey number in the suit schedule property. To
evidence the fact phanies of survey number 28 and list is produced for kind
perusal of this Hon’ble court.
7. The plaintiff humbly submits that, The suit schedule property is Hiduvali
land with private rights, the said land was cultivated with trees, the said
trees were used for Dharma Karya by the title holders and the revenue exemption
was obtained by the erstwhile owners and by then it was treated as Dharmadhaya
Inam land. Owner was given as Inamdar status. The land is not a granted land.
Private land with inam concessions. Later the same was converted from inam
patta to sarkari patta by quoting the name of occupant as THOPU in the oldest
revenue record available in the form of Khethuvaru Pathrike. Extract of
KETHUVARU PATRIKE is herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable
Court. Although 1886 title deed confers absolute title to donee, the revenue
records were not properly entered from earlier time.
8. The plaintiff humbly submits that, The oldest revenue document that is
available with the revenue department is ‘quit rent register’, the copy of said
register although with 4th defendant and the entries were commented by the
predecessor officers of 4th defendant positions, the similar same revenue old
records were repeatedly destroyed by defendants officers to help ill-conceived
plans of politicians and land maphia elements. In quit rent register there is
no fixation of either rent or Revenue over the land, only previous Revenue is
shown, The title deed number is shown all these shows that the said land is
held on the basis of title deed, previous to that inam grant it was Hiduvali
land with land Revenue, Inam was granted not as land grant, but as revenue
exemption for up keep of Thopu (Trees) which was considered by erstwhile
administrators that growing trees as shelter to travelers is a DHARMA karya.
Quit Rent register extract is mis-interpreted by 2nd defendant out of ill-will
and disrespect towards law.
9. The plaintiff humbly submits that, Another oldest document available with
Revenue department that is 4th defendant is ‘PHAISAL PATRIKE’, a copy of it is
available with plaintiff. Defendant’s are trying to destroy old records just to
satisfy some politically motivated persons. In the said document ‘DHARMADHA
Page 11
6. I Humbly submit that, the suit schedule property came under maralenahalli
survey number 28 by then in 1886 the total extent of that survey number 26
acres 7 guntas present extent is 18 acres 08.19.21 guntas, the remaining extent
is merged in neighbouring grama that is lingapura, to obtain those relevant
records plaintiff and her vendors have approached 4th defendant’s, they are
repeatedly issuing endorsements about the non-availability of old revenue
records. In totality suit schedule property originally formed out of
maralenahalli grama which is adjacent to the border of lingapura grama.
Previously vendors of me had title and possession to maralenahalli and
lingapura survey number in the suit schedule property. To evidence the fact
phanies of survey number 28 and list is produced for kind perusal of this
Hon’ble court.
7. I Humbly submit that, The suit schedule property is Hiduvali land with private
rights, the said land was cultivated with trees, the said trees were used for
Dharma Karya by the title holders and the revenue exemption was obtained by the
erstwhile owners and by then it was treated as Dharmadhaya Inam land. Owner was
given as Inamdar status. The land is not a granted land. Private land with inam
concessions. Later the same was converted from inam patta to sarkari patta by
quoting the name of occupant as THOPU in the oldest revenue record available in
the form of Khethuvaru Pathrike. Extract of KETHUVARU PATRIKE is herewith
produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court. Although 1886 title
deed confers absolute title to donee, the revenue records were not properly
entered from earlier time.
8. I Humbly submit that, The oldest revenue document that is available with the
revenue department is ‘quit rent register’, the copy of said register although
with 4th defendant and the entries were commented by the predecessor officers of
4th defendant positions, the similar same revenue old records were repeatedly
destroyed by defendants officers to help ill-conceived plans of politicians and
land maphia elements. In quit rent register there is no fixation of either rent
or Revenue over the land, only previous Revenue is shown, The title deed number
is shown all these shows that the said land is held on the basis of title deed,
previous to that inam grant it was Hiduvali land with land Revenue, Inam was
granted not as land grant, but as revenue exemption for up keep of Thopu
(Trees) which was considered by erstwhile administrators that growing trees as
shelter to travelers is a DHARMA karya. Quit Rent register extract is mis-
interpreted by 2nd defendant out of ill-will and disrespect towards law.
9. I Humbly submit that, Another oldest document available with Revenue department
that is 4th defendant is ‘PHAISAL PATRIKE’, a copy of it is available with
plaintiff. Defendant’s are trying to destroy old records just to satisfy some
politically motivated persons. In the said document ‘DHARMADHA THOPU’ is
rounded off and name of ‘Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao No: 90/1886’ was entered,
such old records certified copy was obtained by vendors were purposefully
destroyed by the 2 to 4 defendants. The copy is produced for kind perusal of
Hon’ble court.
10. I Humbly submit that, Ever since from the date of acquisition of title and
possession through the registered sale deed, iam continuously enjoying the
suit Schedule Property uninterruptedly. Iam making the payment of taxes to the
authorities concerned in respect of the suit schedule property periodically.
Except me no other person/s having any manner of right, title or interest much-
less possession over the Schedule property. The documents concerned in respect
of the payment of upto date taxes to the authorities concerned and the
Page 12
Extract of Mutation Register are herewith produced for the kind perusal of this
Honourable Court.
11. I Humbly submit that, It is fraudulently tried by enemies of my vendors and
some officers under the defendants to show rights of my vendors ownership
limited to trees over the land, in phani entries. Local officials in collusion
with some politicians, in order to grab my vendors possession and ownership
hatched a plan to start litigation in respect to right over the trees in suit
schedule property. It is my vendors Mr Anandrao who went first to High Court
(WP No: 28816/1996) alleging unauthorized interference by government and
illegal order regarding rights in trees. This fact is overlooked by 2nd
defendant with ulterior motive to satisfy the political land maphia elements
who are posing themselves with desperation in guise of safe guarders of public
property. A copy of the said order in WP No: 28816/1996 is herewith produced
for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.
12. I Humbly submit that, On 18-07-1998 an order was passed in RRT (Dis):65/97-98
by Tahsildar of Tumkur, that is 4th respondent in his quasi judicial capacity
with reasons, the judgement itself is self explanatory as to nature of right
decided. A copy of the said order in RRT (Dis):65/97-98 is herewith produced
for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court. The said order remained
unchallenged by any of the parties in a proper forum, within the prescribed
period. The 2nd defendant used his suo-motto powers of revision only after 3
years of limited period which is highly illegal and needs to be condemned for
non observation of law.
13. I Humbly submit that, The subsequent incumbent 4th defendant in his executive
capacity reports to his superiors that is 2nd defendant by allegating several
points disputing correctness of quasi-judicial decision of his predecessor,
this attitude is illegal and shows some enmity and political motivation behind
such move.
14. I Humbly submit that, 4th defendant in RRT (Dis) 65/97-98 Pronounced orders on
13-07-1998. As per the legal procedure Under Proviso to Section 56(3) of The
Karnataka Land Revenue act, suo-motto Revenue officer can exercise revision
powers only within 3 years from the date of order. For other purposes of
private parties filing Revision Petition 4 months is the limitation prescribed
in Section 56(3). Such Legal provisions were violated in treating the Revision
petition RP 72/2000-01 as maintainable. The 2nd defendant framed a record
showing the maintainability question in fact such order was not passed on that
tampered date. The copy of order sheet shows tampering and fabrication by 2nd
defendant in its page five. A copy of the said order sheet is herewith produced
for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.
15. I Humbly submit that, The 2nd defendant on 03-12-2001 suo motto registered a
case of Revision Petition, without any petition from any parties and treated
some baseless representations as petitions, to claim title on behalf of
government. Neither any representative from government nor any responsible
citizen submitted any records to claim title on behalf of government in the
suo-motto revision petition. The said revision petition is ill-conceived one
just to knock off the property of me. I participated in the said proceedings
with all objections, hoping to get justice done in due course of time.
16. I Humbly submit that, Inspite of contentions and report from Tahsildar 4th
defendant he is neither arraigned as petitioner or some one on behalf
Page 21
consisting of Thopu (Trees) for Dharma Karya transferring absolute interest to
donee. Sheebaiah & Venkatachalaiah got suit schedule property land from
sale deed executed by Tulasamma w/o Narasingarao for fifty rupees each. Later
Venkatachalaiah executed his share to Sheebaiah. By the gift deed Sheebaiah
transferred land to Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao. The erst while owners as
donee’s enjoyed the land from 1886 without any obstruction from any authorities
until they legally transferred the land for sale to me. The mother deed that is
Gift deed executed in 1886 is produced for the kind perusal of this
Honourable Court.
6. I Humbly submit that, 3rd and 4th defendants from time immemorial not maintaining
revenue records of my suit schedule property by following due procedural law,
they are attempting to write words non existing before in place of mine in RTC
maintained by opponents. The representation given by me was rejected without
giving respect towards High Court orders. I found that there is a need for
specific order and hence this application.
7. I Humbly submit that, I and my family members are scared and are suffering
from mental agony. The persons who are supposed to be the protectors/guardians
of public rights themselves prepared to brake/violate the law. Hence having no
other alternative, effective, efficacious, expeditious remedy iam approaching
this Hon’ble Court seeking the protection to my ownership and possession over
the suit schedule property for which i deserve rightly.
8. I Humbly submit that, the prior notice to the 3rd and 4th Defendants may change
the scenario and it may push me into much trouble. Hence i pray for the
dispensation of the prior notice to the Defendants.
9. I Humbly submit that, Though iam a valid purchaser of the Schedule Property
facing threat of dispossession by creation of fake entries in the hands of
these 3rd and 4th Defendants, iam suffering for no fault of mine. My lawful
right, title, interest and possession are being invaded with by the acts of the
Defendants. The act of the Defendants is highly deplorable and should be
checked immediately otherwise it will leads to many complications and
multiplicity of proceedings.
10. I Humbly submit that, After passing of illegal orders by the 2nd defendant
plaintiff approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, through writ proceedings
in WP NO: 11504/2008 (KLR), wherein Hon’ble court has directed this plaintiff
to approach civil court and Hon’ble court also stayed the orders of 2nd
defendant.
11. I respectfully submit that in continuation of above illegal activities of the
Defendants are trying to do the same thing by forcible eviction from the suit
schedule property.
12. In the event of this Application is being rejected I would be put to
irreparable loss and injustice and great hardship would be caused to me. On the
other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the same is
being allowed. Balance of convenience lies with me.
13. In view of the urgency and need of immediate action, I pray this Hon’ble court
to dispense the prior notice of I.A., to the Defendants.
14. In the circumstances, I pray this Hon’ble Court to allow the accompanying
Application in the interest of justice and equity.
