Allowed

Sri Siddappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2021WP/48534/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru, allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District. The court held that revenue entries prevailing in favor of the petitioners for over three and a half decades cannot be disturbed solely based on an olde

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.06.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.39/2011-12 is quashed, and revenue entries are subject to final adjudication in a civil suit.

Sri Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 48534/2016 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI SIDDAPPA S/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT MADHURE VILLAGE, KANASAWADI POST, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶8

SRI.ANJANAPPA S/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT MADHURE VILLAGE, KANASAWADI POST, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶9

SMT.MUNIYAMMA D/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT MADHURE VILLAGE, KANASAWADI POST, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶10

¶11

SRI.D.MUNIRAJU S/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT MADHURE VILLAGE, KANASAWADI POST, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶12

SRI RAMAIAH S/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT MADHURE VILLAGE, KANASAWADI POST, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶13

SMT.SHANKARAMMA D/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MADHURE VILLAGE, KANASAWADI POST, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. ... PETITIONERS

¶14

(By Sri. SIDDAMALLAPPA P. M., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND :

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER, PODIUM BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR, PIN CODE - 561 203. 4. THE TAHSILDAR DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE - 561 203. 5. SRI.K.T.NANJUNDEGOWDA S/O LATE K.THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KAMBADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDHALAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE - 561 203. ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. C.R. SUBRAMANYA., AGA FOR R5)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.6.2016 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER R-2 HEREIN IN CASE NO.REVISION PETITION NO.39/2011-12 AS PER ANNEXURE-F.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the authorities and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent are heard for final disposal. The petitioners, who assert ownership of land measuring 4 acres 1 gunta in Sy.No.33/3 of Channadevi Agrahara village, Madure Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk [‘the subject land’], have impugned the order dated 20.6.2016 in Revision Petition No.39/2011-12 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District (the second respondent).

¶25

The petitioners contend that their ancestor, Sri. Doddaiah, son of Siddaiah was the absolute owner of the subject land and the revenue entries continued in his name until the year 1998-99. After the demise of Sri. Doddaiah, son of Siddaiah, the revenue entries for the subject land are mutated in the names of his sons vide M.R.No.25/1998-99. The family members have

¶26

¶27

entered into the registered partition deed dated 15.4.2005, and in the partition the subject land is allotted to Sri Beeraiah, one of the sons of Doddaiah, son of Siddaiah. The revenue records of the subject property have been updated in MR No.15/2004-05 consequent to this partition deed. Sri Beeraiah has mortgaged the subject land in favour of M/s ICICI Bank Limited, and this encumbrance is also entered in the RTC under appropriate mutation entry. Sri Beeraiah has died on 10.8.2016, and on his demise, the petitioners have succeeded to the subject property.

¶28

The fifth respondent has impugned the revenue entry in MR No.15/2004-05 before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur (the third respondent) under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the KLR Act') in RA (DO)95/200708. The Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the appeal by the order dated 22.3.2010. However, the

¶29

¶30

Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District [the second respondent] in the Revision Petition No.39/2011-12 preferred by the fifth respondent, has set aside the mutation entry in MR No.15/2004-05 directing the fifth respondent's name to be shown for an extent of 2 acres out of the total extent of 4 acres and 1 gunta in the subject land because of the sale deed dated 28.4.1974.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Commissioner should have considered the indisputable fact that the revenue records for the subject land stood in the name of Sri Doddaiah, son of Siddaiah until the change in the revenue entry in favour of his sons by MR No.25/1998-99 though the fifth respondent relies upon a set of sale deeds of the year 1974. The fifth respondent has not impugned the continuation of the revenue entries in favour of Sri. Doddaiah, son of Siddaiah or the subsequent change in the revenue entries in favour of his sons in MR

¶32

¶33

No.25/1998-99. The Assistant Commissioner has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the fifth respondent without impugning this revenue entry in MR No.25/1998-99. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the fifth respondent, merely because he relies upon a set of sale deeds executed in the year 1974, could not be given the advantage of revenue entries that have prevailed over a long period time. The Deputy Commissioner has overlooked material circumstances and therefore is arbitrary and irregular.

¶34

The learned counsel for the fifth respondent supported by the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that Sri Doddaiah and other family members, after demise of the undisputed owner, Sri Siddappa, have sold an extent of 3 acres 21 guntas in the subject land in favour of Sri. Hanumegowda under the sale deed dated 4.3.1970. Smt.Mariyamma has purchased 2 acres out of this extent of 3 acres 21

¶35

¶36

guntas from Sri. Hanumegowda under the sale deed dated 22.6.1974, and on the very same day, she has transferred this extent of 2 acres in favour of the fifth respondent. The revenue entries by themselves do not create title in the land and therefore, even if the revenue entries continued in the name of Sri Siddappa with the subsequent entries in favour of grand sons in the year 1998-99, the fifth respondent's rights to the extent of 2 acres in the subject land cannot be denied. As such, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the fifth respondent's revision petition against the Assistant Commissioner's order.

¶37

The rival submissions are considered in the light of the undisputed fact that the revenue entries for the subject lands continued in the name of the petitioners' ancestors with revenue entries in favour of the sons of Sri Doddaiah being mutated in the year 1989 vide MR No.25/1998-99. The fifth

¶38

¶39

respondent, who asserts title over an extent of 2 acres in the subject land with the execution of the sale deed in his favour in 1974 and the title in favour of his vendor in the year 1970, has not staked any claim insofar as the revenue entries for over four decades. The consequence thereof, even if the fifth respondent could rely upon the sale deed executed in his favour, would involve an amalgam of questions of fact impacting title which cannot be decided by the revenue authorities under Chapter-11 of the KLR Act.

¶40

This Court is of the considered view that the

¶41

Deputy Commissioner in giving precedence to the sale deed relied upon by the fifth respondent has overlooked this facet which could not have been overlooked given the fact that the revenue entries prevailed in favour of the petitioners/their predecessors-in-title for over three and half decades. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. But the revenue entries in favour

¶42

¶43

of the petitioners, or any person/persons claiming under them, would have to be subject to adjudication of the fifth respondent's title to an extent of 2 acres in the subject land in properly instituted civil proceedings. Therefore, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 20.06.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner [the second respondent] in Revision Petition No.39/2011-12 is quashed with the observation that the revenue entries for the subject land in favour of the petitioners and every person claiming under them shall be subject to final adjudication in a properly instituted suit.

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

Sri Siddappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddappa v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri. Y Dinakar Shetty Vs the Tahsildar

Jana Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Bank of Baroda

K Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs the Dy. Commissioner

Sri Kariyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sridhar Kakarla Vs the State of Karnataka