Allowed

Smt. D Indramma v. the State Government

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2021WP/42218/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition, quashing the Deputy Commissioner’s order that restored revenue entries to one son. The court held the lower authority could not have acted on alleged consent without evidence on record, directing implementation of the Assistant Commissioner’s order in favor of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 7.5.2012 is quashed and the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 25.08.2010 is restored with consequential direction to the Tahsilda

Smt. D Indramma Vs the State Government — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.42218/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT. D INDRAMMA, W/O Y.G.RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O THIMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 219.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA PATTANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE GOVERNMENT, BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶13

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

¶14

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶15

BENGALURU - 1.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE - 560 002.

¶17

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DIVISION,

¶19

DAVANAGERE - 560 002.

¶20

THE THAHASILDAR, HONNALI TALUK,

¶21

HONNALI,

¶22

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 219.

¶23

SRI.Y.G.THIPPANNA, S/O GOVINDAPPA,

¶24

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

¶25

THIMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶26

HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 219.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED AT ANNEXURED PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RA.CR.04/1112 DATED 07.05.2012 BY CALLING UPON THE RECORDS IF NECESSARY AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

¶31

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard for final disposal, but none appears for the fifth respondent. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order dated 7.5.2012 in RA.CR.04/2011-12, proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 {for short, the KLR Act] on the file of the second respondent – the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District. The second respondent, at the instance of the fifth respondent who has initiated the proceedings in RA.CR.04/2011-12, has set aside the order dated 25.8.2010 by the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere sub-division, Davanagere in RA.CR.132/2008-09 (proceedings under 136(2) of the KLR Act) restoring the revenue entries in IHC 9/2003-04 and M.R.No.14/2003-04 in favour of the fifth respondent.

¶34

The petitioner contends that her father-in-law, Sri.Govindappa and his two sons i.e., her husband,

¶35

¶36

Sri.Rudrappa and the fifth respondent have entered into registered Partition Deed on 24.02.1999. In terms of this Partition Deed, her father-in-law is allotted the land measuring 4 Acres 27 Guntas in Sy.No.19/2p1 of Thimmenahalli Village, Sasuvehalli II Hobli, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District ('the subject land'), amongst other properties. The revenue records pursuant to this Partition Deed are updated in M.R.No.21/1998-99 in favour of her father-in-law, who has died intestate on 10.10.1999. Her husband, Sri.Rudrappa, has died on 26.03.2004. After the death of her husband, the fifth respondent has submitted an application for change of the revenue entries for the subject land in his name suppressing that the petitioner would also be entitled for a share therein.

¶37

The petitioner has impugned such revenue entries in favour of the fifth respondent in the appeal in No.132/2008-09 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal by the

¶38

¶39

Order dated 25.08.2010. The Deputy Commissioner has recorded the petitioner's case in greater detail. However observing that the impugned revenue entries in favour of the fifth respondent are made based on a statement by the petitioner that there is no objection from any family members for mutation in favour of the fifth respondent, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the Assistant Commissioner's Order dated 25.08.2010.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues in support of the petition reiterating the assertions that Sri. Govindappa is the undisputed kathedar of the subject land and he has died intestate leaving behind his two sons. The petitioner being the wife of one of the sons, who has died intestate, would definitely be entitled for joint revenue entries to the subject property. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that the petitioner has not given any statement as observed by the Deputy Commissioner. These material assertions have remained uncontrovered. This

¶41

¶42

Court is of the considered view that the Deputy Commissioner could not have interfered with the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 25.08.2010 observing that the petitioner has consented to the impugned revenue entries because nothing is brought on record to establish that the petitioner has given up her right or that the revenue entries in favour of the fifth respondent was subject to the petitioner’s right. The parties will have to ultimately work out their rights to the subject property in a properly instituted suit.

¶43

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 7.5.2012 in RA.CR.04/201112 is quashed and the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 25.08.2010 in RA.CR.132/2008-09 is restored with consequential direction to the concerned Tahsildhar to implement the same expeditiously.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

cbc

Smt. D Indramma v. the State Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. D Indramma v. the State Government

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

Rajanna H D Vs the State of Karnataka Represented by

Smt Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shanthamma S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Manjula S Vs Smt Mahadevi L P

Sri. Revanna Siddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Theosophical Society Vs the State of Karnataka