Allowed

Mohammed Saleem v. Smt C P Nagaveni

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2021WP/3760/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order passed hastily by the Assistant Commissioner in mutation proceedings where the appeal was advanced without notice to the petitioner. The Court directed restoration of revenue entries and a common order in pending appeals.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; revenue entries restored to petitioner; common order directed in pending appeals; notice issued to Principal Secretary.

Mohammed Saleem Vs Smt C P Nagaveni — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.16633 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.3760 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶7

In W.P.No.16633/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MOHAMMED SALEEM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE MOHAMMED YUSUF, RESIDING AT NO.1171, KOTE, MASJID BEEDI, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. C.P.NAGAVENI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. SURESH, RESIDING AT NO.2126/1, KUVEMPUNAGAR, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTICT-562160

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-562159

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1; SRI.R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.01.2021 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.RA 901/2019-20 VIDE ANNEXURE-B CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE MUTATION ORDER DATED 25.01.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2021 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-B1 IN MR NO.T35 (MR NO.65/1991-92) AND ETC.

¶20

In W.P.No.3760/2021

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

MOHAMMED SALEEM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE MOHAMMED YUSUF, RESIDING AT NO.1171, KOTE, MASJID BEEDI, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶23

... PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SMT.C.P.NAGAVENI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O SURESH, RESIDING AT NO.2126/1, KUVEMPUNAGAR, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561126

¶27

THE TAHSILDAR, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTICT-561126

¶28

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-561126

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1; SRI.R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

¶31

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13 .01.2021 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.RA 901/2019-20 VIDE ANNEXURE-B CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE MUTATION ORDER DATED 25.01.2021 PASSED BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, CHANNAPATNA PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2021 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-B1 AND ETC.

¶33

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 in R.A.No.901/2019-2020 whereby the mutation proceedings in M.R.No.65/1991-92 in respect of Sy.No.69/1 and 70/1 of Honniganahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District, were set aside.

¶36

It is stated that the petitioner was the owner of the aforesaid land, having purchased it in the year 1991-92. Consequent thereto, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records pursuant to acceptance of the mutation proceedings in M.R.No.65/1991-92. When things stood thus, the respondent No.1 claimed that the aforesaid property was gifted to her long prior

¶37

¶38

to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Based upon such a gift deed, the name of the respondent No.1 was entered in the revenue records relating to the aforesaid land pursuant to RRT(DS) No.618/17-18. The petitioner herein challenged the said order of the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.3 in R.A.No.164/19-2020 while the respondent No.1 also challenged the said proceeding before the respondent No.3 in .R.A.No.901/19-20.

¶39

It is stated that though both the Regular Appeals were filed against the same proceedings in RRT(DS) No.618/17-18, the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 was taken up for consideration by the respondent No.3. The appeal was advanced by the respondent No.1 without notice and knowledge of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 took up the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 and passed orders on 13.01.2021. The respondent No.2 acted at lighting speed and changed the revenue records in his name without even allowing enough time for the petitioner to challenge the order. This Court noticed the conduct of the respondent No.3

¶40

¶41

in W.P.No.3760/2021 and directed the respondent No.3 to be present in person before the Court. The respondent No.3 realizing the mistake reversed the entries of the name of the respondent No.1 in the revenue records to the name of the petitioner in so far as the land bearing Sy.No.69/1. However, the respondent No.3 had not reversed the entries in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.70/1 which continued to be in the name of the respondent No.1.

¶42

The petitioner therefore, challenged the sanity of the order passed by the respondent No.3 on the ground that it was passed for obvious extraneous consideration.

¶43

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand has fairly submitted that the appeal before the respondent No.3 was advanced and that there was nothing to indicate that the notice of the advancement was served to the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.3 in R.A.No.901/2019-2 may be set aside and the revenue entries in respect of Sy.No.70/1 be restored as per the

¶44

¶45

M.R.No.65/1991-92. He however, submitted that such continuation of the name of the petitioner should be subject to the result of the Regular Appeals filed before the respondent No.3.

¶46

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 in R.A.No.901/2019-20 is set aside and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to restore the name of the petitioner as per M.R.No.65/1991-92.

¶47

The respondent No.3 is directed to consider both R.A.No.901/2019-20 and R.A.N.164/2019-20 and pass a common order.

¶48

It is needless to mention that the revenue entries in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.69/1 and 70/1 shall be subject to the result of the outcome of R.A.No.901/2019-20 and R.A.No.164/2019-20.

¶49

Before parting, this Court has noticed that the respondent No.3 has conducted proceedings hastily unmindful of the consequences. It is therefore

¶50

¶51

appropriate that the same is brought to the notice of the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, who may consider taking appropriate steps against the

¶52

respondent No.3 in accordance with law.

¶53

The office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

GJM

Mohammed Saleem v. Smt C P Nagaveni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Saleem v. Smt C P Nagaveni

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

Mr. Anand Kumar Kshatriya Vs Mr. Syed Sajid

Sri. Yellappa Vs Smt. Gowramma

K H Thimmaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Doddabailappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri G Dharmalingam Vs Sri R Sekar

Sri Stroiney Joseph Pais Vs the State of Karnataka