By Sri v. K. Nayak, Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 02 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.A.NO.200008/2015 BETWEEN: SHRI MALIKARJUN 9/O SHRI VEERAPPA BALLARYAGKD ABOUT 58 YRBAR RESIDING AT STATION ROAD SHIKHARKHANA CROSSBIJAPUR TALUK BIJAPUR DISTRICTR-586 101. .. APPELLA (BY SRI V. K. NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1.THERE INCOME TAX OFFICAYAKAR BHAVANBIJAPUR- 586 101.AYAKAR BHAVANBIJAPUR- 586 101. 2.THR JOINT COMMISSIONBROF INCOME TAX BIJAPUR RANGEOF INCOME TAX BIJAPUR RANGE BIJAPUR- 586 101. & THR COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAXDr. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROADINCOME TAXDr. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BELGAUM- 590 OO1. ) THR STATE OF KARNATAKAREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYREVENUE DEPARTMENTM S BUILDINGREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYREVENUE DEPARTMENTM S BUILDING BANGALORE- 560 OOO. 5.THR ASST. DIRECTOR OFLAND RECORDSCITY SURVEY OFFICEBIJAPUR- 586 101.LAND RECORDSCITY SURVEY OFFICEBIJAPUR- 586 101. 6.THERE JOINT DIRECTOF LAND RECORDSBRLGAUM DISTRICTBELGAUM- 560 OOOYOF LAND RECORDSBRLGAUM DISTRICTBELGAUM- 560 OOOY .. RESPONDEN (BY SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE AND SRI Y. V. RAVIRAJ ADVOCATES FOR R11 TO R33 R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED SRI A. SYED HABEEB AGA FOR R4 TO R6) SRI A. SYED HABEEB AGA FOR R4 TO R6) THIS WRIT APPBAL IS FILED UNDEBR SHKCTION 4 THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SETASIDE THR ORDER OF THR LEARNED SINGLK JUDGEDATED 11.08.2014 IN W.P. NOs.202743-745/2014 (T-IT)AND GRANT SUCH OTHBR OR FURTHRR RELIEF ORRBLIBEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DBEM FIT IN THCIRCUMSTANCES OF THER CASE THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,RAM MOHAN REDDY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT There is no dispute that the appellant’s vendor intitle suffered an order under section 269F(6) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 by which the immovable propertybearing CTS 1750/1B, Ward No. III, Bijapur, measurin0109 square yards was acquired by the Department ofIncome Tax (Annexure-A). There is also no dispute thatthe said order when called in question in a writproceeding, a Division Bench of this Court by orderdated11.12/3/1986Annexure-Bdismissed7/0petitions and upheld the order of Appropriate authority.The Apex Court in Civil appeal Nos.1992-2003/1986arising out of Civil Miscellaneous Nos.14955-566/ 198dismissed the appeal by order dated 08.10.96. 2. Yet again it is not disputed that one NandlalTejmal Kothari through whom appellants claimed title tothe immovable property filed W.P.505/2006 whencelearned Single Judge by order dated 11.07.2006Annexure-D dismissed the petition reiterating theacquisition proceedings by Income Tax Departmentwhich stood concluded, by orders of the Apex court inCivil Appeal. Aggrieved by said order Nandlal TejmalKothari preferred writ appeal No.1356/2006 whence theDivision Bench by order dated 13.02.2007 Annexure-Edismissed the appeal following which civil leave toappeal (civil) 22303/2007 was dismissed on 29.04.2008by the Apex Court. 3. Undaunted it appears that the son of NandlalTejmal Kothari,by TIAINori. Vinay12+7176704W.P.68657/2010 and when leave was sought towithdraw the writ petition was dismissed on 24.09.2012Annexure —G, 4. Respondent -Income Tax Department havingmade representations to the officer of the RevenueDepartment to have their names recorded in therevenue registers, when not considered led to filingW.P.202743-745/2014, whence a learned Single Judgeby order dated 11.08.2014 disposed of the petitiondirecting the respondents to take appropriate steps inthe matter of recording the name of Income TaxDepartment in the City Survey Records, which order isimpugned in this intra Court appeal. 3. Undaunted it appears that the son of NandlalTejmal Kothari,by TIAINori. Vinay12+7176704W.P.68657/2010 and when leave was sought towithdraw the writ petition was dismissed on 24.09.2012Annexure —G, 4. Respondent -Income Tax Department havingmade representations to the officer of the RevenueDepartment to have their names recorded in therevenue registers, when not considered led to filingW.P.202743-745/2014, whence a learned Single Judgeby order dated 11.08.2014 disposed of the petitiondirecting the respondents to take appropriate steps inthe matter of recording the name of Income TaxDepartment in the City Survey Records, which order isimpugned in this intra Court appeal. Oo. Regard being had to undisputed facts ofappellant having no manner of right, title and interest inthe immovable property more appropriately when hisvendors in title are divested of title to the immovableproperty, cannot have any objection to the order oflearned Single Judge issuing a direction to record thename of the owner being Income Tax Department in therevenue records in respect of the immovable property in # question in accordance with the Karnataka LandRevenue Act, 1964. Appeal devoid of merits is dismissed. All pending applications are unnecessary and '0C0<704 Sd/-JUDGESd/-JUDGE SBN