Allowed

Sri Narasappa and Others v. Deputy Commissioner and Others

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2021WP/30003/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by petitioners challenging mutation entries. The court held that revenue authorities erred in changing records without notice to the petitioners' father and in the face of a pending civil suit dismissal. The impugned mutation orders were quashed, and the matter remitted for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; impugned mutation orders dated 09.12.1990 and 24.09.2007 are quashed; matter remitted to the 2nd respondent for fresh orders after hearing all parties.

Sri Narasappa and Others Vs Deputy Commissioner and Others — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶5

WP NO.30003 OF 2008 (KLR/RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

1 . SRI NARASAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, BAGEWADI VILLAGE, SIRAGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶8

2 . THIMMAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, BAGEWADI VILLAGE, SIRAGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶9

3 . NEELAKANTAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, BAGEWADI VILLAGE, SIRAGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SMT. V.VIDYA, ADV.,)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS,BELLARY. 2 . THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,SIRUGUPPA,BELLARY. 3 . SHARANAPPA S/O AMARAPPA, R/O BAGEWADI VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.H.K.BASAVARAJ, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED MUTATION MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 9.12.1990 VIDK ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,.

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶20

Brief facts as revealed from the records are that petitioners’ father Siddappa had purchased land bearing Sy.No.257 A/1 of Bagewadi village Siraguppa taluka measuring 1 A 13 cents under the registered sale deed dated 14.09.1970 and subsequent to the said purchase, name of the petitioners’ father was entered in the revenue records of the said land measuring 1 Acres 13 cents. The land bearing Sy.No.257 A/1 totally measured 2 Acres 25 Cents and remaining 1 Acre 12 Cents stood in the name of the 3^rd respondent’s mother. After the death of the 3^rd respondent’s mother, revenue records in respect of entire extent of 2 Acres 25 Cents was changed in the name of respondent No.3. The order made in favour of the respondent No.3 was without notice to the petitioners. The petitioners therefore had filed revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the revenue entries made in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of Sy.No.257 A/1 to the extent of 2

¶21

¶22

Acres 25 Cents. The said revision petition was dismissed on the ground that respondent No.3 has already filed a suit for injunction before the jurisdictional Civil Court and entries made shall be subject to the result of the suit.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are the owners of land bearing Sy.No.257 A/1 to the extent of 1 Acre 13 cents. The 2^nd respondent has erroneously passed an order changing the entries to the extent of 2 A 25 cents in Sy.No.257/ A/1 in the name of the 3^rd respondent without following the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. She also submits that before passing of the order in favour of the respondent No.3, no notice was issued to the father of the petitioner who died in the year 1992.

¶24

The learned AGA opposes the prayer made in the writ petition stating that the suit is already pending before the jurisdictional Civil Court between the contesting parties and therefore the entries now standing in the name of respondent No.3 is not required to be disturbed and the same shall be subject to the result of the suit.

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner has purchased the land measuring 1 A 13 cents of land in Sy.No.257 A/1 under the registered sale deed dated 14.09.1970 and pursuant to the sale, the revenue records of the said extent of land which was subject matter of the registered sale deed were changed in the name of petitioners’ father. The said entries continued in the name of the petitioners’ father till year 1990. It is only after the death of 3^rd respondent’s mother erroneously the 2^nd respondent has changed the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.257A/ 1 to the entire extent of 2 A 25 cents in the name of the 3^rd respondent though the 3^rd respondent mother held only 1 A 12 cents of land in the said survey number in her name during her life time.

¶28

The petitioners’ father has expired in the year 1992. Before changing the revenue entries in respect of the land which stood in the name of the petitioners’ father no notice was issued to him. The entries which stood in the name of the petitioners’ father were made pursuant to the registered sale deed. Before making any change in respect of such entries, petitioners’ father

¶29

¶30

was required to be heard in the matter. However, the 2^nd respondent has erroneously passed an order changing the entries to the extent of 2 A 25 cents in Sy.No.257 A/1 in the name of the 3^rd respondent. The Deputy Commissioner has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has dismissed the revision petition on the ground that there is suit pending before the jurisdictional Civil Court between the contesting parties and the entries in respect of the land in question would be made subject to the result of the said suit. The O.S.No.95/2000 filed by the 3^rd respondent is a bare suit for decree of permanent injunction. When the petitioners’ father had purchased an extent of 1A 13 cents of land in Sy.No.257A/1 under a registered sale deed, the revenue authorities are bound to make entries in the revenue records in respect of the said item of land and accordingly, entries were also made in name of the petitioners’ father. Said entries made in the name of the petitioners’ father was continued for the period of 20 years and thereafter, without giving notice to the petitioners’ father entries have been changed. Such an order cannot be sustained in law.

¶31

The Deputy Commissioner has erred in not exercising his jurisdiction and therefore, the order dated 09.12.1990 vide

¶32

¶33

Annexure-G and the order dated 24.09.2007 vide Annexure-H are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶36

ii) The impugned order dated 09.12.1990 vide Annexure-G passed by the 2^nd respondent and the order dated 24.09.2007 vide Annexure-H passed by the 1^st respondent are quashed.

¶37

iii) The matter is remitted back to the 2^nd respondent with a direction to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioners as well as the 3^rd respondent.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Vb/-

Sri Narasappa and Others v. Deputy Commissioner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narasappa and Others v. Deputy Commissioner and Others

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

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

Shrimad Veerashaiva Shivayogi Mandir Trust Vs Th Regional Commissioner

Bharatkumar Parishppa Sheri Vs Regional Commissioner

Hulegemma Wines Vs the State of Karnataka