Dismissed

Smt.Talkal Savitramma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2019WA/100417/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ appeals were admitted and heard finally challenging the Single Judge's order allowing lower writ petitions. The Court observed that revenue authorities cannot decide title matters pending civil litigation and held that the appellant must seek injunctions under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC rather than via writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt.Talkal Savitramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NOS.100417/2019 (KLR-RES) & WA-100435/2019

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SMT.TALKAL SAVITRAMMA @ SHIGANI SAVITHRAMMA W/O VAMANNA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSOEHOLD, MAHAJANADAHALLI, HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583115. ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJA, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIST: BALLARI, BALLARI-583101.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HOSAPETE SUB-DIVISION, HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARI-583201.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-583115. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR ITAGI HOBLI, HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583115. 5. SMT.RENUKAVVA W/O SHIVANAGOUDA AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MAHAJANADAHALLI, HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583115. 6. SMT.LALITHAMMA W/O SHADAKSHARIGOUDA AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MAHAJANADAHALLI, HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583115. 7. SMT.BASAMMA JAMBANAGOUDA AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MAHAJANADAHALLI, HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583115. 8. SMT.MALLAMMA W/O HANUMA REDDY AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MAHAJANADAHALLI, HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583115.... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADV. FOR R5 TO 8 SRI. RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1-R4)

¶17

: 3 :

¶18

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, A. CALL FOR THE RECORDS B. TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.107551/2018 & 108539/ 2018 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINRY HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appeals are heard on the question of admission. Same are admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same are heard finally.

¶22

In these writ appeals, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 2.1.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.107551/2018 & 108539/2018 by which the writ petitions preferred by the appellant has been disposed of with liberty to the appellant to take recourse to the remedy as may be available to the appellant under the law.

¶23

Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that, the appellant had filed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

O.S.No.185/2005, appellant had filed first appeal, namely, RFA 1893/2007. In the aforesaid appeal, this Court passed an ad-interim order dated 5/2/2008 by which drawing up of final decree was stayed. However, respondent Nos.5 to 8 in contravention of the interim order initiated final decree proceedings and an order was passed on 28/6/2008 directing drawing up of the final decree. However, the final decree could not be drawn as respondent Nos.5 to 8 have failed to deposit the requisite stamps.

¶26

It is the case of the appellant that on misrepresentation before the Revenue Inspector, respondent Nos.5 to 8 got their names mutated in the revenue records in respect of the property in question. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Revenue Inspector. The aforesaid order was challenged by respondent Nos.5 to 8 in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 14/3/2018 set aside the order of

¶27

: 5 :

¶28

mutation. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the liberty to the appellant to take recourse to the remedy as remedy available to him under the law.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after passing of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, respondents Nos.5 to 8 are trying to interfere with the possession of the appellants over the land in question. Therefore, an injunction be issued in favour of appellants and respondent Nos.5 to 8 be restrained from interfering with the possession of the appellants over the land in question.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that in view of the pendency of the first appeal before this Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellant to

¶31

: 6 :

¶32

take recourse to the remedy which may be available to him under the law.

¶33

We have considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. It is well settled in law that the revenue authorities, including the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have no authority in law to decide the question of title. The question of title in respect of the lands in question pending adjudication before this Court in RFA No.1893/2007 in which an ad-interim order has been passed on 29/9/2016 directing the parties to maintain status-quo. Needless to state that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner would subject to the result of RFA No.1893/2007 and does not create any right in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8. In case respondent Nos.5 to 8 are interfering with the possession of the appellant over the lands in question, the appellant has the remedy of filing an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code.

¶34

: 7 :

¶35

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Vmb

Smt.Talkal Savitramma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt.Talkal Savitramma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baburao Gangadhar Doddannawar, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mahaboobsab S/O Sannaharjarathsab Makandar, Vs State of Karnataka

The Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri.Basavanni Ramu Chogule

Lakshmi @ Gollara Lakshmi W/O. Gollara Thippaiah Vs the Divisional Controller

A.S. Impex Vs M/S.Shree Durga Traders

Chanrappa S/O Ramanna Vadavani Vs A.R. Alagur