Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Smt Suguna

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2018WA/1297/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the State and the Tahsildar challenging a Single Judge's order. The order directed the Tahsildar to restore the petitioner's name in revenue records pursuant to a civil court decree. The Court held that there was no error in the Single Judge's direction, exercising its discretion to ignore delay to determine merits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The directions of the learned Single Judge to the Tahsildar were upheld.

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt Suguna — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.A.No.1297/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1297 OF 2018 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶11

THE TAHSILDAR, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, DODDABALLAPUR-85.

¶12

... APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT.SUGUNA, W/O LATE M.K.MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.529, 3RD MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054.

... RESPONDENT

W.A.No.1297/2018

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.10.2017 PASSSED IN W.P.No.43189/2017 (KLRRR/SUR) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This intra Court appeal by the State of Karnataka and the Tahsildar, Doddaballapur, against the order dated 06.10.2017 in W.P.No.43189/2017 is reportedly time-barred by a period of 156 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed.

¶23

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, while ignoring the delay, we have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants on merits to examine if there be any meritorious issue worth consideration.

¶24

Having heard learned AGA and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any error or infirmity in the order impugned so as to call for interference in intra Court appeal.

¶25

W.A.No.1297/2018

¶26

¶27

In sum and substance, by way of the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has only issued directions on the obvious i.e., for the appellants to comply with their own order that was issued in terms of the existing decree in favour of the writ petitioner; and to correct the revenue record by restoring the name of writ petitioner in terms of the said decree.

¶28

The relevant background aspects of the matter had been that according to the writ petitioner, the land in question measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.26 at Hosudya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, was granted in favour of her late husband M.K.Muniraju as per the grant order dated 10.08.1979, which was followed by issuance of grant certificate dated 10.10.1979. It had been the case of the writ petitioner that ever since the date of grant, her husband and other family members were in possession and enjoyment of the land in question and the khata of the property was also transferred in the name of her husband.

¶29

The writ petitioner pointed out that by an order dated 13.10.1992, the revenue entries were sought to be cancelled

¶30

W.A.No.1297/2018

¶31

¶32

for the years 1989-90 to 1991-92 in respect of several survey numbers situated in Hosudya Village and there was an attempt to dispossess her, whereupon she filed a suit, being O.S.No.246/2002, that was decreed on 13.03.2008 and thereafter, the Tahsildar issued the endorsement dated 24.02.2012 to the effect that in terms of the decree passed in O.S.No.246/2002, the khata has to be restored in the name of the petitioner.

¶33

The petitioner stated the grievance in the writ petition that despite such orders and the decree existing in her favour, her name has not been restored in the revenue records. Her submissions were sought to be contested on behalf of the present appellants on the ground that an enquiry had been initiated in respect of the land comprising the said Sy.No.26 of Hosudya Village and the matter was seized by the COD and hence, the record could not be altered so as to restore the name of the writ petitioner.

¶34

The learned Single Judge found no force in the submissions made on behalf of the present appellants, for the Tahasildar being under obligation to act in terms of the decree

¶35

W.A.No.1297/2018

¶36

¶37

existing in favour of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petition while observing and directing as under:

¶38

"6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, as can be found from the order dated 24.02.2012 passed vide Annexure-B by the Tahsildar himself, petitioner has obtained a decree in her favour in O.S.No.246/2002 disposed of on 13.03.2008 and her name has to be restored in terms of the decree. It is also noticed that before the death of M.K.Muniraju, his name was entered in the revenue record. Therefore, in the absence of any interim stay of the decree by the Appellate Court, omission on the part of the Tahsildar in not implementing the order dated 24.02.2012 cannot be justified. Merely because some enquiry is pending whether or not petitioner's land has been involved in the said enquiry, the Tahsildar cannot ignore his obligation to act in terms of the decree passed by the Civil Court to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue record.

¶39

Hence, this writ petition is allowed in part. A direction is issued to respondent No.2 - Tahsildar, Doddaballapur Taluk, Doddaballapur, to take action in accordance with law for implementing the order dated 24.04.2012 keeping in mind the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.246/2002 on 13.03.2008 (wrongly mentioned as 18.03.2008 in Annexure-B - order) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶40

It is sought to be contended that the decree in question

¶41

had essentially been for perpetual injunction and not for

¶42

W.A.No.1297/2018

¶43

¶44

declaration of title. It is further contended that in view of the large scale fraud being found in the enquiry concerning the grants made with respect to the said land bearing Sy.No.26 of Hosudya Village, the appellants could not have issued khata in favour of the writ petitioner. The submissions made on behalf of the appellants have their own shortcomings.

¶45

A copy of the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2008 in O.S.No.246/2002 has been placed on record by the appellants with an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC. For it is relevance, we have examined the said decree and find the said suit had not been for injunction simplicitor, but had been for declaration and injunction where the plaintiff (writ petitioner) also sought declaration against the order dated 13.10.1992 whereby the grant in question was cancelled by the Government. The said suit was decreed while declaring the said order dated 13.10.1992 as being illegal; and the defendants (the appellants herein) were restrained by way of perpetual injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit land. It is not the case of the appellants that the said

¶46

W.A.No.1297/2018

¶47

¶48

decree has been altered or interfered with in any appropriate proceedings. On the contrary, it appears that the Tahsildar (appellant No.2) himself consciously passed the order on 24.02.2012 for compliance of the decree aforesaid.

¶49

In the given set of facts and circumstances and the status of the proceedings as obtaining at present, the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have committed any error in issuing the directions aforesaid.

¶50

The appeal fails, and is therefore dismissed.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR

The State of Karnataka v. Smt Suguna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Smt Suguna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Veerabhadrreshwara Swamy Andale Grama Vs the State of Karnataka Represented by

Sri. Sharath Kumar v R Vs State of Karnataka

K v Sudhakara Gupta Vs K G Pattabhi Ram

Raichur Vikasa Parishad Vs State of Karnataka