Allowed

Smt Malatibai W/O Vasant Kulkarni, v. Umesh Falsely Calling Himself as Adopted

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2022WP/31481/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order that set aside a mutation entry in favor of the petitioners due to deemed tenancy. The court held the land was not tenanted and the order was illegal and arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17.10.2008 passed by Respondent No.1 is quashed and the mutation entry in favor of the petitioners is restored.

Smt Malatibai W/O Vasant Kulkarni, Vs Umesh Falsely… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 31481 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 31481 OF 2008 (KLR-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT MALATIBAI W/O VASANT KULKARNI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NO 36 SANJAY APARTMENTS, 743 ‘A’ WARD, TIMBER MARKET, SHIVAJI PETH KOLHAPUR 416006.

¶9

JINNAPPA S/O BASAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE R/O: MALIKWAD 591201, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAUM.

¶10

SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S

¶11

2(A) SMT. KUSUM. W/O JINNAPPA. KUMBAR, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MALIKWAD-591244, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

John Doe

¶13

Digitally signed by John Doe

¶14

2(B) RAOSAHEB S/O. JINNAPPA KUMBAR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MALIKWAD-591244, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

2(C) SMT. MALAN W/O. SURESH KUMBAR AGE: 48 YEARS. OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KHADAKLAT-591228, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

2(D) SMT. VARSHA W/O.BASAVARAJ KUMBAR AGE:45 YEAS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. R/O: MARATHA SHALA ROAD. RABADE TALIM, MALE TAL PANHALA-416114. DIST: KOLHAPUR.

¶17

2(E) SACHIN S/O. JINNAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶18

¶19

WP No. 31481 of 2008

¶20

R/O: MALIKWAD – 591244, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAVI S BALIKAI, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM DISTRICT, DIST: BELGAUM

¶25

THE ASST COMMISSIONER CHIKODI SUB DIVISION CHIKODI DIST:BELAGUM.

¶26

3 THE TAHSHILDAR, CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST:BELAGUAM.

¶27

UMESH FALSELY CALLING HIMSELF AS ADOPTED S/O BEERA POOJARI, AGE: MINOR, REP BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN FATHER YALLAPPA VITHAL POOJARI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NANADI-591233, TAL :CHIKODI, DIST:BELGAUM.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI.V.SKALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-3; SHIVARAJ S BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2008 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-A. GRANT INTERIM ORDEER, STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDER DATE 17.10.2008 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

WP No. 31481 of 2008

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioner No.2 has purchased a portion of the land bearing survey No.83/2003 of Nanadi village from petitioner No.1 by a registered sale deed dated 06.02.2007 for valuable consideration and in pursuance of the said registered sale deed, the name of the petitioner No.2 was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the subject land. The respondent No.4 filed objections which has been rejected, against which the respondent No.4 filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner concerned dismissed the appeal confirming the certification of mutation entries made in favour of the petitioner No.2 against which the respondent No.4 filed a Revision Petition under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The respondent No.1-Deputy Commission allowed the Revision Petition and set-aside the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner No.2 stating that the subject land was the tenanted land and vested the same with the Government free from all encumbrances against which the present petition is filed.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits

¶37

that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is in violation of the principles of natural justice since the petitioners

¶38

¶39

WP No. 31481 of 2008

¶40

were not provided with an opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the subject land was not a tenanted land as on the appointed date i.e, 01.03.1974 which is evident from the record of rights produced at Annexures B and C.

¶41

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the subject land was a tenanted land and as such the respondent No.1 has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶42

Learned HCGP further submits that the impugned order was passed in view of the suit pending between the petitioners and respondent No.4.

¶43

I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

It is undisputed that the petitioner No.2 acquired title over the subject land by virtue of registered sale deed and the respondent No.3 in exercise of the power under Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has certified the mutation entry in favour of the petitioners. Perusal of the record of rights at Annexures-B and C indicates that the subject land was not a tenanted land as on the appointed date i.e, 01.03.1974. Hence, the

¶45

¶46

WP No. 31481 of 2008

¶47

impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 stating that the subject land was a tenanted land and further vesting with the Government free from all encumbrances is illegal and arbitrary.

¶48

Merely pendency of the suit between the petitioners and respondent No.4 is not a bar for mutating the name of the petitioner No.2 in the record of rights as specified under Section 128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act in the absence any order of restraint.

¶49

In view of the proceeding, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The Writ Petition is allowed and impugned order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed and consequently the mutation entry in favour of the petitioners in respect of subject land stands restored.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Smt Malatibai W/O Vasant Kulkarni, v. Umesh Falsely Calling Himself as Adopted

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Malatibai W/O Vasant Kulkarni, v. Umesh Falsely Calling Himself as Adopted

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

M/S Pola Bala Prabha Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Ayub S/O Abdulmajeed Maniyar Vs State of Karnataka

Prf. Narayan S/O Krishna Marathe Vs the Principal Secretary

The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc Vs Ramappa S/O Basavanneppa Karrora

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Basappa Billal Vs the State of Karnataka

Devendrappa S/O Hanumantappa Vaddarahatti Vs the State of Karnataka