Allowed

Annegowda v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2022WP/20531/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed petitioner writ petition challenging a Durasthi survey order that ignored a prior registered sale deed. Court directed authorities to conduct a fresh Durasthi considering all sale deeds, subject to pending suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set-aside; revenue authorities directed to conduct a Durasthi of Sy.No.90 considering the registered sale deed dated 01.04.1974.

Annegowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

W.P.No.20531/2016 (KLR - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANNEGOWDA, S/O LATE CHANNARAYEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶9

K.C.RAJANNA, S/O LATE CHANNARAYEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE K C KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O KEREGODU VILLAGE, KEREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶11

PANCHALINGEGOWDA, DEAD BY HIS LRS,

¶12

SMT. TAYAMMA, W/O LATE PANCHALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶13

YASHWANTHAKUMAR, S/O LATE PANCHALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

VASANTHAKUMAR, S/O LATE PANCHALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, PETITIONERS 4 TO 6 ARE R/O KEREGODU VILLAGE, KEREGODU – HOBLI, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶16

… PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI.L.RAJA, ADV.)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶20

THE TASILDAR, MANDYA – TQ., MANDYA – 571 401.

¶21

D. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KALAMANTIDODDI, KEREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶22

SMT. LINGAMMA, W/O KALEGOWDA, D/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NERALAKERE, ARAKERE - HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA – TQ., MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 402.

¶23

SMT. SAKUDEVI, D/O LATE DEVEGOWDA,

¶24

¶25

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O ECHAGERE VILLAGE, KEREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶26

SMT. MANCHAMMA, D/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KALMANTIDODDI, KEREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶27

SMT. JAYARATHNA, D/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, W/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O KAVERI NURSING HOME, ASHOK NAGAR, 1^ST CROSS, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶28

… RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESWARAN, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.R.PRAMOD, ADV., FOR R3; NOTICE TO R5 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DTAED 22.06.2022)

¶30

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN APPEAL NO [LAND SURVEY] NO.09/2014 DATED 1.2.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE – H; GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN APPEAL NO [LAND SURVEY] NO.09/2014 DATED 1.2.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE - H.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petitioners challenged the Durasthi proceedings

¶35

in respect of Sy.No.90 of Keregodu Village, Mandya District. In this survey number, an extent of 3 acres 30 guntas and 4 acres ie., a total extent of 7 acres 30 guntas was granted to the predecessor’s interest of respondent Nos.3 to 7.

¶36

It is the contention of the petitioners that the predecessor’s interest of respondent Nos.3 to 7 ie., Sri.Devegowda had conveyed an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.90 under a registered sale deed dated 01.04.1974 and the said conveyance has also been reflected in the revenue entries vide MR No.179/1974-75.

¶37

It is contended that the Durasthi had been conducted prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners and related to the entire extent of 7 acres 30 guntas and on the basis of this Durasthi, the title of the petitioners is being questioned.

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that as a matter of fact, respondent No.3 has instituted a suit in OS No.518/2014 seeking for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the entire extent of 7 acres 30 guntas and the said suit is pending consideration.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the Durasthi which had been conducted prior to the sale, the revenue entries had been mutated vide MR No.135/2002-03; MR No.37/2004-05 and MR No.164/2003-04 and the said mutation orders were challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal in R.Misc.No.167/2014 and the Assistant Commissioner has in fact set-aside the order of mutation and has remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration.

¶41

It is to be stated here that the grant of 7 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.90 is not in dispute. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased 2 acres out of 7 acres 30 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 01.04.1974 and it is contended that the name of the petitioners was

¶42

¶43

ordered to be entered in the revenue records vide MR No.179/1974-75.

¶44

Since, there is a registered sale deed executed by the father of respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioners in respect of a portion of Sy.No.90, necessarily, a Durasthi is required to be conducted and the conveyance made by the father of the third respondent will also have to be taken into consideration at that time. The sale deed executed by the father of the petitioner, even though under dispute, cannot be ignored, while conducting the Durasthi.

¶45

In my view, therefore it would sub-serve the interest of justice, if the authorities are directed to conduct a Durasthi of Sy.No.90 after taking into consideration the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners dated 01.04.1974 and pass appropriate orders.

¶46

It is needless to state that the Durasthi that is conducted and the revenue entries that are to be entered

¶47

¶48

pursuant to the said Durasthi would be subject to the ultimate result of the suit that has been filed by respondent No.3 in OS No.518/2014. It is also made clear that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an opinion rendered on the merits of the rival claim of the parties.

¶49

Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed . The order of the Deputy Commissioner is set-aside and the revenue authorities are directed to conduct a Durasthi as ordered above.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

Annegowda v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annegowda v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

R D Venkatachalapathy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D K Krishna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Urugendra Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Anandamallappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nijalingappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. D. Harshendra Kumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner