Allowed

Pralhad S/O Madwaraj Sunadholi v. the Dy Commr Belgaum Dist

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2020WP/33721/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions, the High Court quashed lower court orders that set aside revenue mutation entries in favour of a widow and her sons following an acknowledged oral partition. Relying on a concluded civil suit dismissing a partition claim, the Court restored the mutation entries and directed their recording.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were quashed/set aside, and the respective mutation entries (M.E. Nos. 9183, 10693, 11886, 11887) were restored.

Pralhad S/O Madwaraj Sunadholi Vs the Dy Commr Belgaum Dist — Partition | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.15506/2006 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.33721/2004 (KLR-RR-SUR)

¶7

IN WRIT PETITION NO.15506/2006:

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SMT KASTUREVVA W/O GURULINGAPPA NELLI, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC;HOUSEHOLD WORK, NO.567, HALBAG GALLI, KILLA, GOKAK 591307, DIST BELAGAVI.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVI S.BALIKAI, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DISTRICT BELAGAVI.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL SUB DIVISION, BAILHONGAL 591126, DIST. BELAGAVI,

¶15

VEERABHADRAPPA IRAPPA NELLI AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O PLOT NO.35, OPP.K.L.NARAGUND, HOSPITAL, RAMANAGAR, BELAGAVI 590010

¶16

BASAVANNEPPA IRAPPA NELLI, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O NO. 567, HALABAG GALLI, KILLA, GOKAK 591307 DIST: BELAGAVI,

¶17

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI.DINESH M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R3 & NOTICE TO R4 SERVED)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2004 PASSED BY R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED 23.08.2002 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶20

IN WRIT PETITION NO.33721/2004:

¶21

BETWEEN

¶22

PRALHAD S/O MADWARAJ SUNADHOLI MAJOR OCC:AGRICULTURE

¶23

RADHA W/O PRALHAD SUNADHOLI MAJOR OCC:HOUSEHOLD BOTH R/O ACHAR GALLI, GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶24

... PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI.R.G.HEGDE, ADV.)

¶26

AND

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST BELAGAVI.

¶28

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL, SUB DIVISION, BAILHONGAL.

¶29

VEERABHADRAPPA S/O IRAPPA NELLI MAJOR, OCC:SERVICE, R/O PLOT NO.35, OPPOSITE K.L.NARAGUND HOSPITAL, RAMNAGAR, BELAGAVI-10

¶30

KASTUREVVA W/O GURLINGAPPA NELLI MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O HALBAG GALLI KILLA GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶31

... RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI.M.B.NARAGUND, ADV. FOR R3, SRI.RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADV. FOR R4)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-B DATED 29.08.2003 PASSED BY R2 AND ANNEXURE-C DATED 17.06.2004 PASSED BY R1.

¶34

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

¶36

ORDER

¶37

These petitions have been filed calling in question the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal and the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi under Section 136(2) and Sections 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶38

The learned counsels state that the facts leading to the present petitions are thus:

¶39

a. A partition of the agricultural lands was affected amongst the three sons of the propositus Sri.Irappa Nelli and the revenue records were made accordingly. After the demise of the propositus, Sri.Irappa Nelli and one of his sons Sri.Gurulingappa Nelli, the revenue records of certain lands, as per M.E. Nos.9183 and 10693, were made in the name of Smt.Kasturevva, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.15506/2006 The other two sons of Sri.Irappa Nelli, Sri.Veerabhadrappa and Sri.Basavanneppa, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in Writ Petition No.15506/2006

¶40

¶41

impugned the revenue entries as per M.E Nos.10693 and 9183 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bailohongal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The brothers impugned these revenue entries in Nos.9183 and 10693 after a lapse of 20 and odd years. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the revenue entries opining that in the absence of a registered document of partition based, the revenue entries, made on the basis of a partition, cannot be sustained.

¶42

b. The revision petition filed by Smt.Kasturevva before the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi is dismissed confirming the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 23.08.2002, but with the observation that the parties would be bound by the decision in O.S. No.174/2002 which was then pending consideration on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Gokak.

¶43

The petitioners in the other petition in Writ

¶44

Petition No.33721/2004 have impugned the subsequent

¶45

¶46

orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the later mutation entries in their favour asserting that these entries are consequent to the transfer in their favour from Smt.Kasturevva under the sale deed dated 20.01.2003. These petitioners/purchasers, are aggrieved because the original mutation entry in M.E. No.9183 and the subsequent mutation entries are set-aside without hearing them; they also urge the grounds as urged by the other petitioner/their vendor, Smt.Kasturevva.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners, both, Smt.Kasturevva and her transferees, submit that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the suit in O.S. No.174/2002, which is referred to in the impugned order, has been dismissed. This suit in O.S. No.174/2002 is filed by one of the sons of Sri.Irappa Nelli i.e., Sri.Veerabhadrappa Irappa Nelli. The learned counsel submits that the Civil Court in dismissing the suit for partition in O.S. No.174/2002 has specifically concluded that Smt.Kasturevva is able to establish an

¶48

¶49

oral partition which is permissible in law. The learned counsel further contends that the judgment in O.S. No.174/2002 (and the suit in O.S. No.317/2007 which is clubbed for trial with the suit in O.S. No.174/2002 by this Court by order dated 20.09.2007 in C.R.P. No.346/2007) has been called in question in R.A. Nos.996 and 997 of 2009. These appeals have also been dismissed by VI Additional District Judge, Belagavi. Thus, there is a conclusion as regards oral partition from which the impugned mutation entries flow. As such, the petition will have to be allowed restoring the mutation entries as per M.E. Nos.9183 and 10693 as well as the subsequent mutation entries in M.E. Nos.11886 and 11887.

¶50

With these submissions remaining uncontroverted, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders will have to be quashed and the aforesaid mutation entries restored. Therefore, the following order:

¶51

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) Writ Petition No.15506/2006 is allowed and the order dated 24.06.2004 in RB.RTA.112/02-03 passed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure – A and the order dated 23.08.2002 in RTA.AP.181+190/2001-02 passed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure – B are set aside and consequently, the respective mutation entries shall be restored.

¶54

(ii) Writ Petition No.33721/2004 is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.08.2003 in No.RTA / AP23 / 2003-04 passed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure – B and the order dated 17.06.2004 in No.RB . RTA . 150 / 2003-04 passed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure – C are quashed and consequential mutation entries in Nos.11886 and 11887 shall be restored.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Rsh

Pralhad S/O Madwaraj Sunadholi v. the Dy Commr Belgaum Dist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pralhad S/O Madwaraj Sunadholi v. the Dy Commr Belgaum Dist

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

Rajashekhar S/O Channaveerayya Vs Smt.Kesari D/O Gurusiddayya

Smt. Shivanavva W/O. Shivalingappa Manikshetty Vs Sri. Mallappa S./O. Hanamappa Parannanavar

Athaulla S/O Adamkhan Karalahalli @ Mvinakatti Vs Nabisab S/O Mohammadsab Sunnakhananavar

Smt Kasturewwa W/O Gurulingappa Nelli Vs the Deputy Commissioner Belgaum District

Bhimappa, S/O Shivappa Malagali Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shankar Kashyappa Salunke Vs the Commissioner City Corporation of Belgaum