Allowed

Mr M a Colasco v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2022WP/3774/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging mutation entries. The Court held that revenue authorities lack the power to adjudicate title disputes. Consequently, orders dismissing the petitioners' claims were quashed, and authorities were directed to restore the prior mutation entries reflecting the legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and set aside; respondents directed to remove their names and mutate petitioners' names forthwith.

Mr M a Colasco Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3774 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 3774 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR M A COLASCO S/O LATE HJA COLASCO SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶9

SMT. PRISCILLA COLACO W/O LATE HJA COLACO AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. RESHMA PINTO W/O JM COLACO AGED 40 YEARS

¶12

MR. PREMVINOD PINTO S/O MA COLACO AGED 35 YEARS

¶13

SRI. VIKRAM PRASHANT COLACO S/O LATE M A COLASCO AGED 34 YEARS

¶14

MR. STEVAN CLIFARD COLACO S/O LATE HJA COLASCO

¶15

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF: ANEMAHAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI

¶16

¶17

WP No. 3774 of 2022

¶18

SAKALESHPURA TQ HASSAN DIST

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATES SOMAREDDI., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALUGU-560001 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY

¶23

DEPUTY COMMISIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN 573201

¶24

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPUR DIVISON SAKALESHPURA HASSAN 573127

¶25

SHAMSUDDIN SHARIF S/O SULEMAN NO 311, 2^ND FLOOR BEHIND JAMIA MASJID ISLAMPURA

¶26

HAL, BENGALURU 560017

¶27

SHAMINA BHANU W/O RAKIB AHMAD 1^ST FLOOR, NAVAYATVADI HASSAN-573217

¶28

SHAMSHAD BEGUM W/O SULEMAN NO 311, 2^ND FLOOR BEHIND JAMIA MASJID

¶29

¶30

WP No. 3774 of 2022

¶31

ISLAMAPUR HAL, BENGALURU 560017

¶32

KAMRUDDIN S/O SULEMAN NEAR DEVI BOOK STALL ANNASANDRA BENGALURU 560017

¶33

AKHTAAR JHAN W/O SYED YUSUF AMIR MOHALLA HASSAN 573217

¶34

RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 8 ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR SHAMSHUDIDIN SHARIF (R5)

¶35

SMT.NAFISA W/O ABDUL RAZAK KAUDHALLI ROAD, ANEMAHAL VILLAGE, KASAB HOBLI, SAKALESHPUR HASSAN-573217

¶36

SMT.HAJIRABI W/O ISMAIL JUMERA MANJIL RAMESHNAGARA, VIMALAPURA, BENGALURU 560017

¶37

REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER A MOHIDDIN SHARIF S/O ARABBIBERI, KAUDHALLI ROAD, ANEMAHAL VILLAGE, KASAB HOBLI, SAKALESHPUR HASSAN-573217

¶38

MR.A.MOHIDDIN SHARIF S/O ARABBIBERI KAUDAHALLI ROAD, ANEMAHAL VILLAGE,

¶39

¶40

WP No. 3774 of 2022

¶41

KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA HASSAN-573217

¶42

TAHSILDAR SAKLESHPURA TALUK HASSAN 573217

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. SESHU.V, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 AND R12 SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R11)

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2016 PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/R3 IN THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶46

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

¶47

ORDER

¶48

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶49

The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 28.04.2016 passed by the respondentAssistant Commissioner at Annexure-A and order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-B.

¶50

Learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.P.Hegde, appearing

¶51

for the petitioners would submit that the contesting

¶52

¶53

WP No. 3774 of 2022

¶54

respondents herein approached the Assistant Commissioner invoking the appeal provision contained in Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) challenging mutation entries made in M.R.No.11/1960-61 and all subsequent mutation entries which were made pursuant to registered instrument. However, the Assistant Commissioner ventures into considering the title of the parties and declares that the name of the petitioners could not have been entered in the land revenue records, since the registered sale deed dated 03.04.1961, under which Sri.HJA Colasco purchased the lands in question, did not pass on title in favour of the purchaser.

¶55

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the law as contained in Section 128 of the Act mandates that whenever there is acquisition of a title under a registered instrument, the respondent authorities are bound to enter the name of the purchaser. Moreover, after lapse of more than half a century, the contesting respondents could not have moved an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner

¶56

¶57

WP No. 3774 of 2022

¶58

and the Assistant Commissioner was required to dismiss the appeal only on the ground of delay and laches.

¶59

Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents seeks to contend that the revenue authorities have now verified from the sale deed dated 03.04.1961 that it does not reflect the fact that the lands in Sy.No.38 of Anemahal village, Kasaba Hobli, Shakaleshapura Taluk was sold under the sale deed. It is also sought to be contended that what was sold under the sale deed dated 03.04.1961 was only 13½ guntas in Sy.No.56/1 and not 1 acre.

¶60

Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, learned High Court Government Pleader for the revenue authorities and on perusal of the petition papers, this Court finds that there is substance in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel, who appears of the petitioners.

¶61

¶62

WP No. 3774 of 2022

¶63

What has been produced before this Court is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 03.04.1961. Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out to the discrepancies in the typed copy. On the other hand, it is sought to be pointed out from the sale deed that the subject lands are the subject matters of the sale deed and therefore at any rate it was not open for the contesting respondents to move the Assistant Commissioner after lapse of half a century to question the mutation entries made starting from the year 1960-61 and all subsequent transactions. After demise of Sri.HJA Colasco, the name of his legal heirs have been entered in the land revenue records by passing mutation orders. Both the mutation entries have been set aside by the revenue authorities without following the due process of law.

¶64

Having regard to the factual aspects as noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Assistant Commissioner could not have gone into the question of title. It is well settled by now that the revenue authorities are not empowered to go into the question of

¶65

¶66

WP No. 3774 of 2022

¶67

title and it is only a competent civil court that can decide the title of the parties.

¶68

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner and order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, are quashed and set aside.

¶69

Needless to observe that if the contesting respondents are of the opinion that the lands in question or any part thereof has not been a subject matter of any sale deed and title continues to vest with them, the contesting respondents may approach a competent civil court and set get a declaration at the hands of the court. As and when such a declaration is given by the Court, they become entitled to enter their names in the land revenue records.

¶70

During the course of these proceedings, the

¶71

revenue authorities have proceeded to mutate the name of the contesting respondents in pursuance of the impugned

¶72

¶73

WP No. 3774 of 2022

¶74

orders. Therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to remove the names of the contesting respondents from

¶75

the land revenue records and mutate the names of the petitioners as it was prior to the impugned order at Annexure-A, forthwith.

¶76

Ordered accordingly.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

Mr M a Colasco v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr M a Colasco v. State of Karnataka

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

Muneppa @Moogappa Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri G P Basavarajappa Vs the Principal Secretary

Ramachandra Vs the Tahsildar and Secretary

Sri. K. v. Shantharam Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr. N. M. Nagaraja Vs the State of Karnataka