Dismissed

Shri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani v. Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2020WP/108356/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an interim order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The order stayed a mutation in petitioners' favor during the pendency of a civil appeal. The court held that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to act when the civil judgment is under challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with the finding that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to pass the mutation order during the pendency of the civil appeal.

Shri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani Vs Assistant… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.108356 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI.RANGAPPA S/O HARIYAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HIRESULIKERI, TQ and DIST: KOPPAL.

¶9

SMT.TIPPAVVA W/O MUKAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: NAVALTAND, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST KOPPAL.

¶10

SMT.LACHHAMAVVA W/O HANUMANTAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HIRESULIKERI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶11

SMT.MANAVVA W/O SAKRAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: NAVALTAND, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI B C JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADV.)

¶14

AND

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL.

¶16

¶17

THE TASILDHAR, TASILDHAR OFFICE, KOPPAL.

¶18

SRI.YAMANAPPA S/O HARIYAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HIRESULERE, TQ and DIST: KOPPAL.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI DEEPAK C. MAGANUR, ADV. FOR R-3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 AUTHORITY IN SANKY:KAM:RRT:APPEAL:2018-19 AS PER ANNEXURE-D, DATED 05.03.2019 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.56/4 MEASURING 3-34-06 GUNTA SITUATED AT HIRESULIKERI VILLAGE KOPPAL TQ & DIST.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners have filed the present writ

¶25

petition challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No.KAM:RRT:APPEAL:2018-

¶26

19 dated 05.03.2019.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶28

¶29

The petitioners had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.85/2010 before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Koppal. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 23.10.2017. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, respondent No.3 preferred R.A.No.22/2017 before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Koppal. In the appeal, respondent No.3 has filed an application for staying the execution and operation of the judgment and decree. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent No.2 for effecting mutation based on the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.85/2010. The respondent No.3 filed objection before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 passed an order on 18.02.2019 mutating the name of the petitioners based on the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.85/2010.

¶30

¶31

The respondent No.3, aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2, filed an appeal before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 passed an interim order staying the order passed by the respondent No.2. Petitioners aggrieved by the interim order granted by the respondent No.1, has filed this petition.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned AGA and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed an application for effecting mutation in the name of petitioners based on the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.85/2010 and the respondent No.2 after holding due enquiry was justified in passing the order. The respondent No.1 without considering the material

¶34

¶35

placed on record has granted the impugned order which is arbitrary and same is liable to be set aside and hence prays to allow the writ petition.

¶36

The learned AGA supports the impugned

¶37

order.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.3 aggrieved by

¶39

the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed an appeal before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.22/2017 and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is under challenge, it has not attained finality. In support of his contention he relies upon the judgment reported in 2006(4) Kar.L.J. 594 in the case of BASAPPA VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIJAPUR DISTRICT & OTHERS wherein it was held that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to change the entries during the pendency of proceedings before the Civil Court. Hence, respondent No.1 was justified in

¶40

¶41

granting the interim order. Hence he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶42

Perused the records and impugned order and

¶43

considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

The petitioners have filed the suit for

¶45

declaration and injunction. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The respondent No.3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree, preferred R.A.No.22/2017 which is pending before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,

¶46

Koppal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed an application for effecting mutation

¶47

in their name based on the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is under challenge and the findings given in the said suit has not attended finality

¶48

as the respondent No.3 has rightly submitted that

¶49

¶50

during the pendency of proceedings before the Civil Court, the respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the petitioners based on the judgment and decree which is under challenge. The respondent No.1 has rightly passed the impugned order. Accordingly, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is

¶51

dismissed.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Shri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani v. Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani v. Assistant Commissioner

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

One Roof Solutions Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Amaragundappa S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Maharudreshwar S/O Mrutyunjaya Sheelavantar Vs the Secretary

Smt.Lalitha W/O Krishna Huddar Vs Basappa S/O Irappa Kothin

Shri.Roopesh Shrikant Vyas Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Yamanappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani Vs Sri.Rangappa S/O Hariyappa Lamani