Partly allowed

Puttaswamy v. Smt. Thayamma

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2022WP/2225/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to make entries in revenue records within sixty days per a pending court decree regarding land/property. The court dismissed the challenge to an interdepartmental endorsement dated 27.05.2014, holding that filing an appeal against the decree was the proper remedy for the delay, leaving condonation of delay to the appellate court.

What did the court decide?

5th Respondent (Deputy Commissioner) directed to make entries in revenue records per decree within 60 days. Challenge to endorsement dismissed; liberty reserved to file appeal.

Puttaswamy Vs Smt. Thayamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2225 OF 2017(KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE JAVARE GOWDA,

¶9

SMT MALAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, (BENEFITS OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)

¶10

SMT SAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA,

¶11

KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA,

¶12

ALL ARE R/OF KEMPI SIDDANA HUNDI, CHIKKIANA CHATRA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 028. PETITIONER 1,3 & 4 MAY BE TREATED AS LRS OF PETITIONER 2, AMENDED V.C.O DATED 21.10.2022

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.SHIVARAMU H C, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. THAYAMMA @ MARAMMA, DEAD BY LRS,

¶17

1A.K H SADASHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶18

¶19

S/O LATE THAYAMMA @ MARAMMA,

¶20

1B.K H SRIKHANTA

¶21

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LALTE THAYAMMA @ MARAMMA,

¶22

1C.K H KRISHNA

¶23

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE THAYAMMA @ MARAMMA,

¶24

1D. LRS OF K H MAHADEVA, SMT SAROJAMMA, MAJOR, W/O LATE K H MAHADEVU, RESIDING AT NO.1624, POLICE LAYOUT, II STAGE, SARDHAR VALLABAI PATEL NAGAR, MYSORE – 570 028.

¶25

1E.MAHESH KUMAR K M AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O LATE K.H.MAHADEVU,

¶26

1D.DINESH KUMAR K M AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE K.H.MAHADEVU,

¶27

1G.LRS OF SIDDARAJU K. H. SMT.VASANTHA, MAJOR, W/O.K.H.SIDDARAJU,

¶28

1H.RAVI K S MAJOR, S/O.LATE K.H.SIDDARAJU,

¶29

1I.MISS SOWMYA MAJOR, S/O.LATE K.H.SIDDARAJU,

¶30

RESPONDENT NOS.1(A) TO (C) & 1(G) TO 1(I) ARE RESIDENTS OF KEMPI SIDDANA HUNDI VILLAGE & POST, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT- 570 028.

¶31

SMT. CHIKKANNAMMA

¶32

@ MALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, D/O.LATE BEERE GOWDA,

¶33

¶34

W/O.MALLE GOWDA, RESIDING AT KADAKOLA HUNDI, KADAKOLA POST,

¶35

MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT – 570 028..

¶36

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶37

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE.

¶38

THE THASILDAR NANJANGUD TALUK, NANJANGUD.

¶39

… RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. C.N.MAHADESHWARAM, AGA FOR R3,R4 & R5; R1(A),R1(B),R1(C),R1(D),R1(E),R1(F),R1(G),R1(H),R1(I) & R2 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESETNED)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD.27.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE R- 5 VIDE ANNEX-E AND ETC.,

¶42

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court

¶45

for assailing the Endorsement dated 27.05.2014 which reads as under:

¶46

“ »A§gÀºÀ

¶47

«µÀAiÀÄ: £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆqÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, CqÀPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.81 © d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ»w PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ:19-05-2014

¶48

¶49

£ÀAd£ÀUÀÆqÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, aPÀÌAiÀÄå£ÀbÀvÀæ ºÉÆÃ§½, CqÀPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.81 © ¨ÁèPï £À°è 2-00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤£À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ SÁvÉ PÉÆÃj Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆÃj G¯ÉèÃRzÀAvÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄµÉÖ.

¶50

CzÀgÀAvÉ F §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀj £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆqÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, aPÀÌAiÀÄå£ÀbÀvÀæ ºÉÆÃ§½, CqÀPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.81 Dgï.n.¹ PÁ®A 9 gÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðj JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸À.£ÀA.81© gÀ°è 2- 00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ©ÃgÉÃUËqÀ ©£ï ©ÃgÀªÀÄä gÀªÀjAzÀ ²æÃ dªÀgÉÃUËqÀ gÀªÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄªÁV JA.Dgï 8/196970 gÀAvÉ SÁvÉ CAVÃPÀgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¦.r.Dgï 18/4-7-1948 £ÉÃ ªÀÄÄPÀÄA ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÁUÀÄªÀ½ aÃn ªÀÄÆ®PÀ zÀgÀPÁ¸ÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw JAzÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀæPÀgÀt d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw PÀqÀvÀ CxÀªÁ ¸ÁUÀÄªÀ½ aÃn ®¨sÀå«®è. F PÁgÀt ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è SÁvÉ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¶51

²æÃ dªÀgÉÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ²æÃ ¥ÀÄlÖ¸Áé«Ä gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ WÉÆÃ¶¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆr£À ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è C¸À®Ä zÁªÁ ¸ÀASÉå: 25/2006 gÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¢£ÁAPÀ:05-08-2008 gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è CªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ wÃ¥ÀÄð §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶52

DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj CqÀPÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.81 © gÀ°è 2-00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À« ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ DzÉÃ±À PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ.

¶53

CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw PÀqÀvÀ CxÀªÁ ¸ÁUÀÄªÀ½ aÃn ®¨sÀå«®èzÀ

¶54

¶55

PÁgÀt ¸ÀPÁðgÀ »vÀzÀÈ¶×¬ÄAzÀ °ªÉÄÃmÉÃ±À£ï PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄr «¼ÀA§ «£Á¬Äw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À« ¸À°è¸À®Ä CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃR ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¤zÉÃð²¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶56

CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆqÀÄ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ C¸À®Ä zÁªÁ ¸ÀASÉå:25/2005 gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ£À°è ªÉÄÃ®ä£À« ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðj ªÀQÃ®gÀÄ, ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.”

¶57

Petitioners have also sought for a Writ of Mandamus to the fourth respondent – Deputy

¶58

Commissioner to make entries in the Revenue Records in

¶59

terms of decree in O.S.No.25/2006 disposed off on 05.08.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that it is the bounden duty of the Revenue officials to make entries in accord with the Court Decree in terms of legislative obligation enacted under the proviso to Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. He also submits that the Endorsement which is in the nature of interdepartmental communication directing the concerned officials to file an appeal against the said Decree is unsustainable at this length of time, limitation for filing the appeal having expired long ago.

¶60

¶61

The official respondents are represented by

¶62

the learned AGA and the private respondents are represented by the private counsel. The petition is being resisted by making submission in justification of the impugned Endorsement and also opposing the prayer of petitioners for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus.

¶63

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, petitioners’ father Javaregowda had obtained a Court Decree in O.S.No.25/2006 decreed on 05.08.2008. A copy of the judgment & Decree avails at Annexure-A. The proviso to Section 135 of 1964 Act, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioners mandates mutation of entries in accord with the decrees. Therefore, petitioners are justified in seeking the Writ of Mandamus in this regard.

¶64

However, the above having been said, the Endorsement which is an interdepartmental

¶65

communication cannot be challenged in the writ petition inasmuch as, it only instructs for taking steps by filing an

¶66

¶67

appeal against the Judgment & Decree in question. It may be highly belated, is true; however, there is a provision i.e., Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for condonation of delay in laying a challenge to the Decree of the kind; whether the delay should be condoned or not, is a matter left to the appellate Court and this Court cannot say anything about the same at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, the challenge to Endorsement has to fail.

¶68

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; 5^th Respondent is directed to make entries in the Revenue Records in accordance with the Decree in question within a period of sixty days. Delay if brooked would entail heavy costs personally payable by him.

¶69

However, the entries to be made shall be subject to outcome of the contemplated appeal. Liberty is reserved to the official respondents to file appeal against the subject Judgment & Decree if they so choose, in accordance with law.

¶70

¶71

Registry shall mark a copy of this judgment to the

¶72

Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore by speed post immediately.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

Bsv

Puttaswamy v. Smt. Thayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttaswamy v. Smt. Thayamma

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

Smt Doomakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H v Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

B M Renuka Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresha Vs Thasildar

Chikkamuniyappa S/O Sadappa Since Dead by His Lrs Motamma Vs Abdul Sattar Khan S/O Late Abdul Raheem Sab Since Dead by His Lrs Smt Parveen Taj

Rangaramaiah Vs State of Karnataka