Dismissed

Sri.Rehan S/O Riyaaz Ahmed Sayyed v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2020WP/105937/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed writ petitions seeking to quash orders cancelling land mutation entries. Ruling that the pending civil suit determines the parties' rights, the High Court held the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to decide title based merely on the pending suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of with the observation that the decision in the pending civil suit would be binding on the parties.

Sri.Rehan S/O Riyaaz Ahmed Sayyed Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.105937/2018 (KLR-RR/SUR) & WRIT PETITION No.107493/2018

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI.REHAN S/O RIYAAZ AHMED SAYYED AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL & SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI SUB-DIVISION, BELAGAVI.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SMT.NOORJAHAN FAROOQUE AHMED SAYYED AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BAHAR GALLI, KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) (SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL & M R SHINDE, ADVS. FOR R5)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.R.T.S.AP 230/2010 DATED:12.04.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXUER-D AND QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.RB/RTA33/2016-17 DATED:28.06.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

¶23

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order bearing No. RTS:AP230/2010 dated 12/04/2016 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-D.

¶24

b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order bearing No.RB/RTA33/2016-17 dated 28.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F in the interest of justice and equity.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that the name of

¶26

the petitioner was mutated on 28.02.2005 in respect of the lands in RS No.2/2 measuring 12 acres 13 guntas

¶27

¶28

and RS No.8/2 measuring 6 acres 28 guntas situated at Amboli village. Respondent No.5 aggrieved by the said mutation entries filed an appeal before the 3^rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner in proceeding bearing No. RTS:AP230/2010. The Assistant Commissioner under impugned order dated 12.04.2016 allowed the appeal and cancelled the mutation entries in respect of the petitioner on the ground that OS No.32/2011 in respect of the same is pending between the parties. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was taken in appeal before the 2^nd Respondent-Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 28.06.2018 confirmed the order of 3^rd Respondent-Assistant Commissioner. Challenging both orders of the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner, the present writ petitions are filed.

¶29

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶31

submit that the mutation entries in respect of the petitioner was in the year 2005, whereas the appeal before the 3^rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner was in the year 2010 i.e. after more than 5 years, without filing an application for condonation of delay. The Assistant Commissioner without there being any application for condonation of delay, condoned the delay and allowed the appeal which is irregular and illegal. Further, he submits that the Deputy Commissioner without looking into the same, confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶33

respondent No.5 would submit that the suit in OS No.32/2011 filed by respondent No.5 is pending consideration. Once the suit is decided, the order of the Revenue Authorities would be inconsequential. He

¶34

¶35

submits that subject to result of the said suit, the present writ petitions may be disposed of.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the suit in OS

¶37

No.32/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge, Khanapur is pending for adjudication between the petitioner and respondent No.5 in respect of the lands in question in the present writ petitions. The Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title of the petitioner over the properties in question. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents-Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner in the present writ petitions interfered with the mutation entries only on the ground that the suit is pending between the parties observing that the decision in the suit would be binding on the parties. In view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in WP No.6872/2013 decided on 24.1.2020 (Smt. Jayamma

¶38

& Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others) , I find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

¶39

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed

¶41

of with the observation that the decision in OS

¶42

No.32/2011 would be binding on the parties.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

JTR

Sri.Rehan S/O Riyaaz Ahmed Sayyed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Rehan S/O Riyaaz Ahmed Sayyed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagayya Annayya Meti Vs Smt.Jayashri W/O Nagayya Meti

Century Social Club Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Bharamappa S/O.Shivappa Yegappanavara Vs Executive Engineer

Sri.Ashok Ballolli S/O Nagappa Ballolli Vs State of Karnataka

Harijana Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Hussain S/O Rajesaheb Warimani Vs Smt.Zoharabi W/O Dastgirsab Mulla