Writ court disposed of petitioner’s petition challenging mutation entries under Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, granting protection against using entries in pending suit while preserving satellite jurisdiction.
Petitioner granted protection against using mutation entries in pending suit trial; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.20542 OF 2022 (KLR - RES)
BETWEEN:
M.P.PRABHUDAS, S/O M.PUTTATHIMMAIH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.L-14, 2ND MAIN 6TH SECTOR, H.S.R.LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 102.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
NOS.5 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT KERECHOODAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 – R4; SRI.N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 AND R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN REVISION PETITION NO.138/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.,
3
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court laying challenge to the order dated 13.01.2021 made under
Section 136(2) and to the Deputy Commissioner's order affirming the above dated 11.04.2022 made under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that these orders ignore the registered Sale Deed which his client holds and therefore, there is error apparent on the face of the record and consequently, they are liable to be voided. He adds, even otherwise, these orders cannot be made use of by the private respondents in their pending declaration suit O.S.No.1217/2021. He expresses apprehension as to the entries enjoying presumptive value under Section 133 of the 1964 Act and their likely influence upon the trial & decision making in the suit or in the applications pending
4
therein and therefore, atleast to that effect protection needs be afforded to his client.
respondents and learned private counsel appearing for the private Respondents oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders contending that, after all, the entries are made on the basis of a decree passed in a full fledged trial i.e., O.S.No.946/1990 decreed on 31.03.2003 and confirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.2531/2006 disposed off on 09.08.2007. They also stress on the pendency of the petitioner's suit for declaration as well. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.
and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the official and private Respondents. Ordinarily, when
5
entries are mutated on the basis of a Court decree, the same are not interfered with in limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 more particularly when another suit instituted by the challenger to the said entries is pending wherein declaration is sought for. The above having been said, some protection needs to be granted to both the sides so that they shall not make use of these entries in the trial of the suit or in hearing of the interlocutory applications.
With the above observation, writ petition is disposed off, It is made clear that nothing herein above shall influence trial & dismissal of the writ petition.
Now, no costs.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ court can quash the Deputy Commissioner's order modifying land entries under Section 133, given the pendency of a declaration suit.
Whether protection needs to be afforded regarding the use of mutation entries in the trial of the pending suit.
Whether writ petition should be dismissed as no final decision on the merits of the mutation dispute needs to be taken by this court.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
M.P.Prabhudas
The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District
The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub – Division
Sanjeevaiah
Narasappa
Raja
Krishna S.Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
