Disposed

Sri.Sadashivanand S/O Kasheppa Dandin v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2020WP/111826/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging a revision order setting aside a mutation appeal. It noted pending civil suits regarding ownership and held that entries in revenue records are subject to the result of these civil proceedings. No jurisdictional issues were adjudicated on merits.

What did the court decide?

none; writ petition disposed off for want of fitness to decide given pending civil litigation.

Sri.Sadashivanand S/O Kasheppa Dandin Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

W.P.No.111826/2019 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.SADASHIVANAND S/O KASHAPPA DANDIN AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAVALI PETE, OPP. HAVINAKATTI, GADAG-BETAGERI, TQ and DIST: GADAG.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.PRAVEENKUMAR G.KULKARNI, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDNG, BENGALURU.

¶12

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶14

4 . GANGAWWA W/O CHANNAPPGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDAR, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KITTUR, TQ: HAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶15

¶16

5 . BASANAGOUDA S/O VEERANAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KITTUR, TQ: HAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶17

6 . BARAMAGOUDA S/O VEERANAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KITTUR, TQ: HAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶18

.. RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6, SRI.VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.06.2019 BEARING No.RP No.13/2015 (RTS/RA/CR-13/2015-16 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3 IN RTS/AP/36/2011-12 AND 40/2011-12 DATED 22.06.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

¶25

18.06.2019 in RP.No.13/2015 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-K filed this writ petition.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner claims

¶27

to be the owner of R.S.No.113/1+2+A measuring 10 acres situated at Kittur village on the basis of registered sale deed dated 05.05.2011 executed by the Channappagouda s/o Laxmangouda Shivanagoudar. The revenue authorities refused to mutate the name of the petitioner based on the J-Form. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the order passed by the Tahasildar. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed a revision petition in R.P.No.13/2015 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The

¶28

¶29

petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner filed this writ petition.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and perused the records.

¶31

Respondent No.4 filed suit in O.S.No.78/1999 against her husband. The suit came to be dismissed. Respondent No.4 filed RFA No.857/2002 against the judgment and decree. The appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.4 and declared that respondent No.4 as owner. Respondent No.4 sold the suit property in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. The names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 are mutated in the revenue records. The petitioner challenged the order of mutation before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation order.

¶32

¶33

5. The petitioner claims that he has purchased suit

¶34

property from the husband of respondent No.4. There is a dispute in regard to ownership in respect of suit property. The revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties. It is the civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide the right of the parties.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶36

that petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.254/2019 seeking for the relief of declaration etc. and suit in O.S.No.140/2016 for perpetual injunction the same are

¶37

pending. In that view of the matter, entries made in the name of respondent Nos.5 and 6 will be subject to result of the suit in O.S.No.254/2019.

¶38

However, the entries in the name of the petitioner shall be subject to the result of O.S.No.140/2016 and O.S.No.254/2019.

¶39

¶40

In view of the above discussions, writ petition is

¶41

disposed off.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

MBS/-

Sri.Sadashivanand S/O Kasheppa Dandin v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Sadashivanand S/O Kasheppa Dandin 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Pushpa W/O Viresh Anvekar Vs Smt.Vidya W/O Late Venkatrai Anvekar

Lokmanya Multipurpose Vs the State of Karnataka

Keshappa S/O. Konappa Lamani Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri.Mohammedyunus S/O Babusab Parewale Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

Vinod S/O Vittal Yaligar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka State Board of Wakfs 6, Vs Abdulmajid S/O. Hydersab Dharwadkar