Writ petition filed to quash orders ignoring a Civil Court decree. Court held Revenue Authorities must mutate entries to accord with the decree under Section 135 proviso. Writ of Mandamus issued as orders quashed.
Impugned orders quashed; Writ of Mandamus issued to act upon the decree and make entry within 90 days.
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, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.34082 OF 2016(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H. V. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, S/O LATE ERABYRAPPA, R/AT HEGGADADEVANAPURA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
SINCE DEAD ON 17.07.2020 BY LRS
2
ALL ARE RESIDING AT HEGGEDADEVANAPUR, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 18.07.2022
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N K MALLIKARJUN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-4 DATED 15.2.2011 WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNX-C AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner against the
impugned orders of the revenue officials is as to a declaratory decree obtained by him in O.S.No.630/1997 decreed on 06.03.2000 in respect of subject property being ignored.
parties and having perused the petition papers, this
4
Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) The proviso to Section 135 of the 1964 Act as interpreted in a catena decisions of this Court casts a legislative obligation on the Revenue Authorities to mutate entries in the Revenue Records to accord with Civil Court Decrees as rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. This having been not considered by the respondent officials, there is an error apparent on the face of impugned orders.
b) The contention of learned AGA that the Government was placed ex-parte and therefore, such a decree need not be acted upon, is very difficult to countenance; law binds everyone unless otherwise indicated said the Apex Court in SUPERINTENDENT & LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA, AIR 1967 SC 997. If that be so, decree also binds all the parties even if it is made ex parte . So far as efficacy level of a civil Court Decree is concerned, whether such a decree is made after trial
or ex parte is irrelevant, to say the least.
5
c) The above apart, learned counsel for the
petitioner rightly points out that the Government being the defendant in the subject suit was represented by the Government Advocate and that till date no proceeds are taken for recalling or challenging the said decree.
d) The last contention of learned AGA that though decree was obtained in the year 2000, the demand for mutation of entries is sought for, decades thereafter is factually incorrect; Even otherwise, the law does not prescribe any limitation for seeking mutation of entries on the basis of such Court decree which is not more than twelve years old when demand was made, the said demand having been made, as per the records way back in 2003 itself.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; the impugned orders are quashed; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the Revenue Officials to act upon the decree and make entry to accord with it within a period of 90 days. If delay is brooked, heavy costs may be entailed to the erring officials, payable personally.
6
However, this order shall not come in the way of Government seeking appropriate remedy against the subject decree in accordance with law.
Registry shall send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary and to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Government of Karnataka so that a disciplinary action is taken against the lapsing/erring officials who arguably left the decree being passed without due contest in respect of public property in question and allowed it to attain finality.
Costs made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Authorities are obligated to mutate entries in Revenue Records to accord with a Civil Court Decree obtained ex-parte.
Whether the demand for mutation is barred as highly belated or time-barred.
Whether the Government is liable to pay costs for failing to contest the decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SUPERINTENDENT & LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTAExplained¶41
SUPERINTENDENT & LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA, AIR 1967 SC 997 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Narasamma and others
The State of Karnataka
Krishna S. Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
