Allowed

Basavaraja @ Basappa S/O Hanamantha Pugashatti v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC25 Aug 2012WP/65439/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order registering mutation in revenue records issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The registration occurred despite a valid injunction order from a civil court restraining respondents from altering entries. The Court held the order unsustainable in violation of the injunction and directed that entries be governed by pending civil proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed, impugned order quashed, entries to be regulated by pending civil proceedings.

Basavaraja @ Basappa S/O Hanamantha Pugashatti Vs the… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.65439/2012(KLR-RR/Sur)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Basavaraja @ Basappa, S/o.hanamantha Pugashatti, Age: 16 years, Occ: Agriculture.

¶9

Pandappa, S/o.Hanamantha Pugashatti, Age: 12 years, Occ: Agriculture,

¶10

Represented by their mother Guardian petitioner No.3.

¶11

Sarasvati @ Sarasavva, W/o.Hanamantha Pugashatti, Age: 35 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Homakuppi, Tq: Gokak,

¶12

Dist: Belgaum. …PETITIONER

¶13

(By Sri.Shriharsh Neelopant, Adv.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

The Assistant Commissioner, Bailahongal Sub-Division, Bailahongal.

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

The Assistant Tahasildar, Nadkacheri, Kaujalagi, Tq: Gokak, Dist: Belgaum.

¶18

Smt.Vijaylakshmi, W/o.Lakshman Aiduddi, Age: Major, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Maradishivapur, Tq: Gokak, Dist: Belgaum.

¶19

Hanamantha, S/o.Pandanappa Pugashatti, Age: Major, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Homakuppi, Tq: Gokak, Dist: Belgaum. ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP for R1 & R2, Sri.Chandrashekar Chakalabbi, Adv. for R3, Sri.M.B.Madanalli & Sri.Anand R.Pujar, Advs. for R4)

¶21

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure `A’.

¶22

This writ petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Even though the matter is listed for orders on the application for vacating stay, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

I have heard Mr.Shriharsh Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.Chandrashekar Chakalabbi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶27

The main grievance of the petitioners appears to be that there was an order injuncting the respondents from changing the entries in the Revenue Records. Apparently, pursuant to certain proceedings, the name of the petitioner was entered in the Revenue records, a copy of which is produced at Annexure `D’ dated 14.01.2011. An interim order was granted as against the 3^rd respondent, who challenged the same by way of an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner has accepted the appeal and set-aside the entry dated 14.01.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶28

As observed, the main contention appears to be that there is an order of injunction operating against respondents 2 and 4 from entering their names in the Revenue records. Indeed it is so. A copy of the

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

injunction order is produced at Annexure C2’. Having regard to the restraint order passed by the Civil Court, I am of the view that Annexure A’ is liable to be interfered inasmuch as in the teeth of an injunction order, the respondents certainly could not have filed an appeal and seek to set-aside the entries in favour of the petitioners. Having said so, following order is passed.:

¶31

(a) Petition is allowed.

¶32

(b) The impugned order at Annexure `A’ is quashed.

¶33

(c) The entries in the Revenue Records shall be regulated by the various Civil Proceedings pending before various Courts.

¶34

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, learned HCGP appearing

¶36

for respondents 1 and 2 is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.

¶37

SPS/-

Basavaraja @ Basappa S/O Hanamantha Pugashatti v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaraja @ Basappa S/O Hanamantha Pugashatti v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jandisab S/O Jandisab Kagadgar Since Deceased by Vs Mohammed Rafiq

Jandisab S/O Jandisab Kagadkar Vs Mohammed Rafiq

M/S Beje Agro Industries, Vs Deputy Commissioner of

K Veereshaiah S/O. Channaiah Vs the Assistant Director of Land Records

Smt. Lakshmamma D/O Kalappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri a S Manjunath Vs the Secretary