Dismissed

Balakrishnagouda Ramanagouda v. Neelavva W/O Shivalingappa Lakkundi

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2020WP/61165/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order by the Deputy Commissioner that rejected the petitioner's appeal against the removal of his name from Column 11 of the Record of Rights. The Court held that an agreement of sale does not grant absolute rights sufficient to maintain Column 11 entry without a registered sale deed and rejected the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands rejected; no relief granted to the petitioner.

Balakrishnagouda Ramanagouda Vs Neelavva W/O… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.61165/2010 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.BALAKRISHNAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDA TIMMANAGOUDRA, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KONDIKOPPA, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT.NEELAVVA W/O SHIVALINGAPPA LAKKUNDI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KONDIKOPPA, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.G.A.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD IN R.T.S.R.A.C.R.12/2009-10 DATED 17.11.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE TAHASILDAR, NAVALGUND BE DIRECTED TO CONTINUE THE ENTRY OF NAME OF HE PETITIONER IN COLUMN NO.11 OF R OF R OF SUIT PROPERTY.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order bearing No.R.T.S.R.A.C.R.12/2009-10 dated 17.11.2009 vide Annexure-A passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that the

¶20

petitioner herein entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent herein in respect of R.S.No.87/5 measuring 8 acres. Based on the agreement of sale the petitioner’s name was entered in column No.11 of the Record of Rights. But the said sale agreement has not been converted to absolute sale. The petitioner has not taken any action to enforce the agreement against the respondent to get the sale deed executed. The respondent requested the

¶21

¶22

Tahasildar Navalgund to remove the entry made in column No.11 stating that it is invalid entry. The Tahasildar by his order dated 10.03.2008 ordered to remove the entry of petitioner’s name from column No.11 of Record of Rights. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahasildar, Navalgund, the petitioner herein filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad after conducting enquiry passed the order on 14.05.2009 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy

¶23

Commissioner after hearing both the sides under impugned order dated 17.11.2009 rejected the

¶24

¶25

revision petition. The said revision petition is impugned in this writ petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsels for the

¶27

parties and perused the material on record.

¶28

The petitioner’s name was entered in

¶29

column No.11 of Record of Rights based on the agreement of sale dated 25.08.1994. But, till this date, the petitioner has not taken any action against the respondent for enforcement of the said agreement of sale, to get the sale deed executed in his favour. On the basis of the agreement itself, the petitioner could not have got his name entered in column No.11. The petitioner states that he is an interested person

¶30

over the property. An agreement of sale would not give absolute right over the property. Mere holder of an agreement of sale cannot get his name entered in the Record of Rights. The

¶31

¶32

Tahsildar rightly removed his name from the Record of Rights on the application made by the respondent. The agreement has not turned into absolute sale in favour of the petitioner. Agreement of sale cannot take the place of absolute sale deed. Both the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority have rightly rejected the appeal and revision of the petitioner.

¶33

No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Balakrishnagouda Ramanagouda v. Neelavva W/O Shivalingappa Lakkundi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishnagouda Ramanagouda v. Neelavva W/O Shivalingappa Lakkundi

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

Shankar Vs Deputy Commissioner

Appasab S/O Ramu Udagatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Chetan S/O Ramgouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Shambanna S/O Rachappa Kollavar Vs Sri.Chandrappa S/O Hanumantappa Yattinamani

Sri.Basayya S/O Siddaiah Gudi Vs Lakshmibhai W/O Nanasaheb Deshpande

Vimalabai W/O Virupaxappa Jogur Vs Devendrakumar S/O Chandrashekhar Katti