Dismissed

Rangamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022WP/19782/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash revenue orders based on a compromise decree alleged to be fraudulent. The court held that revenue courts cannot examine the validity of a civil court decree and disposed of the writ petition, reserving liberty to challenge the decree in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to seek redressal against the compromise decree in the competent civil court; costs made easy.

Rangamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.19782 OF 2022 (KLR - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RANGAMMA, D/O DODDERI DODDAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶9

RATHNAMMA, D/O RANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶10

MANJULA, D/O RANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶11

MANJUNATH @ MANJANNA, S/O RANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶12

PREMA, D/O RANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PETITIONERS ARE AGRICULTURIST AND R/O RANGAMMA COMPOUND, VEERASAGARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK – 572 225, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR – 572 101.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB DIVISION, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶20

THE TAHASILDAR, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR – 572 101.

¶21

NATARAJ, S/O GARUDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O 4^TH CROSS, AMARJYOTHINAGARA, TUMKUR – 572 101.

¶22

H.NANDHEESHAIAH, S/O RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O SAMBRAMA NILAYA, BAILANJANEYA TEMPLE, HANUMANTHANAGARA, TUMKUR – 572 101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 – R4; NOTICE TO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 17.10.2022)

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2022 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. RP-97/2009-10 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE - S TO THE WRIT PETITION CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2008 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. RRT (A)(T)-195/2005-06 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE - R TO THE WRIT PETITION CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2005 PASSED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. RRT. (DIS.) 47/2004-05 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE - Q TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for

¶29

assailing the order dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure S) whereby their revision petition 6th Respondents revision petition R.P. No. 97/2009-10 having been rejected, the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 04.08.2008 has been upheld.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the impugned orders are liable to be voided inasmuch as they are founded on a Civil Court Decree in O.S. No. 418/2004, entered on the basis of a fraudulent compromise between the parties thereto and

¶31

¶32

that petitioners who were not parties eo nominee have been defrauded. He also draws attention of the Court to the judgment made in earlier W.P. No. 3303/2000 in support of his contention.

¶33

Learned AGA on request having accepted notice for

¶34

the official respondents, notice to private respondents having been dispensed with, opposes the petition contending that the impugned orders accord with proviso (3) to Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 since the subject entry in respect of the land in question is made acting on the aforesaid compromise decree; whether the said decree is fraudulently obtained, cannot be subject matter of examination at the hands of Revenue Courts exercising summary jurisdiction; it is open to the petitioners to have the decree in question set aside by approaching a competent civil court in accordance with law.

¶35

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶37

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is in complete agreement with the submission made on behalf of the official respondents and therefore, declines indulgence in the matter. A court decree has a presumptive validity and in revenue adjudication under the provisions of 1964 Act, the validity of such decree cannot be gone into.

¶38

In the face of the court decree, the exercise which

¶39

the petitioners want this court to undertake is nothing but a shadow boxing. Law does not much differentiate between a full fledged trial decree and a compromise decree so far as their efficacy is concerned.

¶40

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek redressal against the compromise decree in question in accordance with law before the competent civil court. If the said decree is set at naught, the Revenue Authorities shall

¶41

¶42

make alteration of the entries, regardless of the impugned

¶43

orders. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶44

Registry shall send a copy of this judgment by speed post to the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6, immediately.

¶45

Costs made easy.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Rangamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangamma 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

B. S. Prasanna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

N K Prakash Babu Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt Balkeesjan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Roohi Taj Vs State of Karnataka

Basavegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka