Allowed

Shri.Appasaheb S/O Satagouda Patil v. Shri. Adagonda @ Manoj S/O Payagonda Patil

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2021WP/114746/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a transfer of land entries based on an unregistered relinquishment deed. The Court quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order and restored the Assistant Commissioner's decision, directing parties to approach Civil Court. Quality: ok

What did the court decide?

The order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is restored.

Shri.Appasaheb S/O Satagouda Patil Vs Shri. Adagonda @ Manoj S/O… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶5

W.P.No.114746/2015 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

Between

¶7

Shri. Appasaheb, S/o Satagouda Patil, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Pangire (A)-591201, Tq: Chikodi, Dist: Belagavi. ...Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri. Akshay A.Katti, Advocate)

¶9

A n d

¶10

Shri. Adagonda @ Manoj, S/o Payagonda Patil,

¶11

Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Pangire (A)-591201, Tq: Chikodi, Dist: Belagavi.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, D.C. Compound, Belagavi-590001.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi Sub-Division, Chikodi-591201, Dist: Belagavi.

¶14

Revenue Inspector, Nipani-591237, Tq: Chikodi, Dist: Belagavi. ...Respondents

¶15

(By Sri. S.S.Bawakhan, Advocate for R1 Sri. H.K.Basavaraj, Addl. Govt. Advocate for R2 to R4)

¶16

¶17

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, produced at Annexure-J.

¶18

This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing ‘B’ Group, this day the Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶21

Brief facts of the case that would be necessary for the purpose of the disposal of this case are: The land bearing R.S.No.113/2A measuring 2 acres 10 guntas situated at Akkol village, Chikodi Taluka, Belagavi District, was purchased by the petitioner and his brother Sri. Payagonda Patil under a registered sale deed dated 13.05.1981. Subsequent to the said purchase, the entries in respect of the said land was transferred in the name of the petitioner and his brother Sri. Payagonda Patil. The 1^st respondent is the son of Sri. Payagonda Patil. Subsequent to the death of Sri. Payagonda Patil, the 1^st respondent succeeded to the share of Sri. Paygonda Patil in the lands in dispute by inheritance. The 1^st respondent made an

¶22

¶23

application before the Revenue Inspector, Nipani to change the entries in respect of the land in dispute to the entire extent in his name stating that the petitioner herein had executed a relinquishment deed dated 25.10.2012, and on the basis of said application made by the 1^st respondent, the entries in respect of the entire extent of land in question was changed in the name of the 1^st respondent vide order dated 22.12.2012. The said order was questioned by the petitioner herein before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’), contending that he had not executed any relinquishment deed in favour of the 1^st respondent herein and the said relinquishment deed, on the basis of which the 4^th respondent has changed the entries in respect of the land in question in favour of the 1^st respondent, is an unregistered document. He also contended that he had no notice from the 4^th respondent before the change of entries in respect of the land in question entirely in the name of the 1^st respondent herein. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said appeal vide his order dated 30.03.2015 which was challenged by the 1^st respondent herein before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act and the Deputy Commissioner,

¶24

¶25

vide his order dated 03.12.2015 allowed the revision petition filed by the 1^st respondent herein under Section 136(3) of the Act and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in allowing the revision petition for the reason that the 4^th respondent-Revenue Inspector has changed the revenue entries in respect of the land in question in favour of the 1^st respondent herein on the basis of an unregistered relinquishment deed which is said to have been executed by the petitioner herein. He submits that the petitioner has disputed the very execution of the said document and there was no notice from the 4^th respondent before changing the entries in favour of the 1^st respondent vide order dated 22.12.2012.

¶27

Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submits that the petitioner had executed relinquishment deed in favour of the 1^st respondent herein after receiving consideration with regard to the value of the property. He submits that the petitioner is a

¶28

¶29

close relative of the 1^st respondent and he had consented before the 4^th respondent for change of revenue entries and it is on his consent, the entries have been changed in favour of the 1^st respondent and therefore, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the same.

¶30

Learned Additional Government Advocate has also

¶31

argued opposing the prayer made in the writ petition.

¶32

I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the 1^st respondent herein is an unregistered document. It is settled principle of law that transfer of title in respect of immoveable property for consideration can be done only by a registered document. The 4^th respondent-Revenue Inspector has, therefore, erred in transferring entries in respect of the land in question in favour of the 1^st respondent on the basis of an unregistered document alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner has disputed the very execution of the said document. Though it is contended by the learned

¶34

¶35

counsel for the 1^st respondent that change of revenue entries was made with the consent of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner herein had consented before the 4^th respondent for changing the entries in respect of the land in question in favour of the 1^st respondent. It is in this background, the Assistant Commissioner had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and set aside the order passed by the 4^th respondent. Without properly appreciating the facts of the case, the Deputy Commissioner has erroneously set aside the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. I am of the considered opinion that since the 4^th respondent herein had transferred the revenue entries in respect of the immoveable property in favour of the 1^st respondent on the basis of an unregistered relinquishment deed, the said order passed by the 4^th respondent was legally unsustainable and the Assistant Commissioner had rightly set aside the said order. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner exercising his jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Act whereby he has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is liable to be quashed.

¶36

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the 2^nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner in No.RB/RTA-01/2015-16 allowing the revision petition filed under Section 136(3) by the 1^st respondent is set aside and the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is restored on file.

¶38

The respective parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court and agitate their rights, and the entries made in respect of the land in question shall be subject to the decree passed in such civil suit.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Kms

Shri.Appasaheb S/O Satagouda Patil v. Shri. Adagonda @ Manoj S/O Payagonda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Appasaheb S/O Satagouda Patil v. Shri. Adagonda @ Manoj S/O Payagonda Patil

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

The Divisional Manager Vs D.Sunka S/O Thirumallaiah

Syed Pasha Patel S/O Syed Shamsuddin Patel Vs the State through Wadi Ps

Chowdappa S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

K.P. Umapathi S/O K. Padmanabha Vs State of Karnataka

Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rotary Education Society Vs the State of Karnataka