TH HIGH COuRT OF KRCA AT BAGAIOR1 DkTED T9I TH 8TH DAY OF 1998 BEFORE TH TfO7’BLE MR.JtJSTICE P,VrsHwNkTHk s€rpy WRIT PTITIO !o.l294O/1998 Between: 1. ibair Ahmed. (major), 5/0 !zssain Sab Pathan, R/o Balakundri B.C. Be1gazn Taluk, Belgaim District. 2. Ismail (major), s/o hi $ s am Sab at han, R/o Balekundri BJC. Belgaum Taluk, Belgaim Districzt. ... Petitioners. (By Sri.S..Hatti, dv.,) 1. The Asst. Commissioner, Belgaum Sub—Division, Belgaum. 2. The Deputy Tahsildar, Hirebagewadi, Belgaurn Taluk. 3. Fder Sab, S/o Buddesab Path, majo;, 0cc. .gricu1turist, R/o Ba1ekuni B.K. Belgaum a1uk, Belgaum Dist. 4. Ibrahim, major, 3/0 iddesab Patha, ... 2 —2 0cc. griei1turist, R/o Balekunci 3.K. Belgaim aluk, Belgaum District. ... Reondents. (By sri.Jagadish Patil for R—3 & 4 sri1totii Mdl.GA for R—j. & 2) ** ** * This WP is filed uncr Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitucion of India praying to quash vide nn.B dt.24-3-98 passed by the Asst. Commr, Belgirn & etc., This coming on for prly. hg. this day, the Court me the following:— ORDER Sri Kotian, learned GovernmentAdvocate is directed to take notice to Respondents—i and 2, 2. In this petition, the petitioners have callied in question the correctness of the order dated 24th March, i998, a cony of which has been produced as AnnexureB, passed by the 1st respon— dentsetting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent entering the name of the petitioners in respect of half of the land which is the subject matter of dispute in this petition. —3— 3, Having regard to the facts and circum tances of thepase 0 I am of the viewI4 this is not a fit case for interference by this court in exrcise of its jurisdiction either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order impugned. It is not in dispute that the occupancy right has been granted in the name of one Sri Buddesab Pthan who is the father of Respondents—3 and 4and pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal,Certificate of Registration was also granted in favour of said Buddesab Pathan, It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the grant of Certificat of Registration the name of said Buddesab Pathan came to be entered in the revenue records and the said position continued till the order which has been setaside by the 1st respondent came to be passed by the 2nd respondent in the year 1996, -4- 4. However, it is the case of the peti tioners that on the basis that there had been partition in the family of the petitioners and Respondents—3 and 4 in the year 1996 and pur suant to the report given by the mother of the respondents—3 and 4 an pursuant to the said partition deed, the name of the petitioners came to be entered in respect ofthe lands Ln question. 5. Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondents—3 and 4 seriously r disputthat there was partition in the family, He also suSits that since the father of the respondents—3 and 4 alone was thetenant in respect ofthe land in question, the Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in his favour and as such the petitioners cannot claim any right in respect of the land in question. In this petition, it is not desirable to go into the respective claims of the parties in respect of —5— land in question as the parties have remedy before the Cjpjj Court to establish their claim. Even with regard to the entries,the parties can get their rights established by the Civil court as provided under thep-oviso given to Section—135 of the Land Revenue Act, Therefore, in the ugh of the discussion made above, r am of thview there ino merit in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 7, Sri Kotian, learned Government Advocate is given four weeks time to file his memo of appearance, sal ia