Allowed

Sri. Appajigowda v. Assistant Comissioner

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2022WP/31612/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that revenue entries must reflect a sale deed. Without a prior order declaring the sale void or initiating resumption proceedings, authorities could not mutate entries to the Government. The writ petition to quash the mutation was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Entry of the Government of Karnataka in revenue records quashed; petitioner's name restored to records as per sale deed and mutation order.

Sri. Appajigowda Vs Assistant Comissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 31612 OF 2019 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.APPAJIGOWDA, S/O. GUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT BAGESHAPURA VILLAGE, GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MISS.SOWMYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ABHIJIT HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,

¶13

HASSAN - 573 103.

¶14

THASILDAR,

¶15

ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103

¶16

NANJAMMA,

¶17

W/O LATE KARIYIAH ALIAS KARIAPPA,

¶18

NANJUNDIAH, S/O LATE KARIYIAH ALIAS KARIAPPA,

¶19

¶20

RESPONDENT NOs.3 & 4 ARE R/AT BAGESHAPURA VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.SESHU V. HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI.B.LEHIEF, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTRY MADE IN THE RTC FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 IN ANNEXURE-A OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ENTERING THE NAME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA IN COLUMN NUMBERS 9, 10 AND 11 OF THE SAID RTC WITH RESPECT TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner purchased the land bearing

¶27

Sy.No.177/P9 (old Sy.No.177/89) measuring 4 acres from respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide registered sale deed dated 12.04.1985 and pursuant to the sale deed, mutation was also effected in the name of the petitioner as per M.R.No.41/1984-85. It is stated that

¶28

¶29

ever since the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶30

It is stated that thereafter the revenue

¶31

authorities mutated the revenue entries in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 who claimed that they were the legal heirs of one Kariappa vide MR No.H104/2014-15. The claim made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 was that lands were granted to Kariappa, who belonged to Scheduled Caste and since the property has been purchased without prior permission, revenue entries could not be sustained.

¶32

The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred

¶33

an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 07.07.2017 accepted the appeal in part and directed the Tahasildar to conduct spot inspection and after obtaining sale deed and the encumbrance certificates,

¶34

¶35

enter the khata in the name of the petitioner if he was in possession.

¶36

It appears that on the basis of the said order, an inspection was conducted and the Tahasildar has found that the petitioner was not in possession and therefore, he has proceeded to enter the name of Government in the revenue records.

¶37

Admittedly, in this case, though it is contended that the lands were granted to Kariappa, no application for resumption was filed nor was any suo moto resumption proceedings were initiated. There is also no order declaring the sale in favour of the petitioner as null and void.

¶38

So long as there is a sale deed in favour of

¶39

the petitioner, revenue entries are bound to reflect the purchaser under sale deed i.e. petitioner's name. Revenue authorities cannot, on the assumption, that

¶40

¶41

the land is a granted land and the purchase was in violation of the grant condition, proceed to mutate the revenue entries in the name of the Government.

¶42

In that view of the matter, action of the revenue authorities in mutating the name of Government in the revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.177/P9 cannot be sustained and the same is quashed.

¶43

The name of the petitioner shall be restored in the revenue records as per the sale deed dated 12.04.1985 and M.R.No.41/1984-85 shall stand restored.

¶44

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed .

¶45

In view of disposal of main matter, pending I.As.

¶46

stand disposed of.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

pgg

Sri. Appajigowda v. Assistant Comissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Appajigowda v. Assistant Comissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Panduranga Swamy Temple Vs the Joint Director of

Sheena Poojary Vs Land Tribunal Kundapur

Sri Papanna @ Muniyappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Anusuyamma S Vs the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

Vittala Shetty Vs the Deputy Commissiner

Smt B Veena Vs the State of Karnataka