Allowed

Smt Venkatalakshmamma v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022WP/54187/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka held that an endorsement quashing the petitioner's suit in revenue records was based on an error of fact. The court allowed the petition, quashed the endorsement, and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for afresh consideration after giving notice to all stakeholders.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned endorsement dated 15.6.2017 and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for afresh consideration after notice to all stakeholders.

Smt Venkatalakshmamma Vs the Principal Secretary — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.54187 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE K. RANGAIAH, W/O APPANGOWDA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O DODDAHOSURU, GULUR HOBLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN-57123.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA B HARAVIGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-57123.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMKUR-57123.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR, TUMKUR TQ, TUMKUR -57123.

¶16

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, GOOLUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TQ: DISTRICT-57123.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.C.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner through this writ petition is calling in

¶24

question the endorsement dated 15.06.2017 (Annexure-D) which reads as under:

¶25

“»A§gÀºÀ

¶26

«µÀAiÀÄ: vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, UÀÆ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆÃ§½, ºÉÆ¸ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.51/3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 51/4 gÀ°è £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ SÁvÉ ¥ÀºÀtÂ ªÀÄrPÉÆqÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

¶27

G¯ÉèÃR:1. ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ:08.09.2015.

¶28

gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, UÀÆ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆÃ§½ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå:376/2015-16, ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.12.2015.

¶29

<<<<<>>>>>

¶30

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ, vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, UÀÆ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆÃ§½, ºÉÆ¸ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.51/3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 51/4 gÀ°è £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ SÁvÉ ¥ÀºÀtÂ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛÃj.

¶31

G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ JA.Dgï.16/1997-98 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JA.Dgï.21/2009-10 gÀAvÉ JA.Dgï CAVÃPÁgÀªÁVzÀÄÝ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ SÁvÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶32

PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä M¦ÀàUÉ/¸À» E®èzÉ ¤ªÀiä vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ

¶33

¶34

ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ M.J¸ï.£ÀA§gï 425/1997gÀ gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ zÁªÉ ºÀÆrzÀÄÝ, ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄVgÀÄwÛÃj.

¶35

£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ rQæAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ «ªÀgÀ EAwªÉ.

¶36

C) ªÁ¢AiÀÄ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ¸À»vÀ ¨sÁUÀvÀ rQæ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ F rQæAiÀÄ ºÀÄPÀÄA ªÀiÁqÀ®ànÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D) 1£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ 2£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀAvÀºÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:03.05.1997gÀ PÀæAiÀÄªÀÅ ªÁ¢UÉ §¢Ý¸ÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ WÉÆÃ¶¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶37

E) ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ±Á±ÀévÀ ¤§ðzsÀPÁeÉÕAiÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ . JAzÀÄ rQæAiÀÄ ºÀÄPÀÄA ªÀiÁqÀ®ànÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ DzÉÃ²¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶38

ªÉÄÃ°£ÀAvÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ªÀÄä zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß rQæAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀeÁUÉÆ½¹zÀÄÝ, ¤ÃªÀÅ PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀAvÉ SÁvÉ ¥ÀºÀtÂ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä gÀºÁ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀiUÉ w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ. ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

¶40

argues that the endorsement has been issued on a wrong premise that his suit in O.S.No.424/1997 has been dismissed when apparently it has been decreed in part and therefore there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Learned AGA on request having accepted notice for the official respondents points out that the writ petition is misconceived due to non-joinder of necessary parties namely the defendants in the suit; the suit is only partly decreed and therefore name of the petitioner cannot be

¶41

¶42

entered in the Revenue Records. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶44

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the impugned endorsement is structured on a wrong factual basis namely the suit of the petitioner is dismissed when it is partly decreed. Thus there is error apparent on the face of the record.

¶45

Although ideally speaking the other defendants

¶46

to the suit in question ought to have been made parties to the writ petition. However, the endorsement being quashed, the matter is now being remitted to the portals of Tahsildar for consideration afresh after hearing all the stakeholders. This of course would do justice even to those who are not a party to the petition.

¶47

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned endorsement is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tahsildar for consideration afresh

¶48

¶49

after issuing notice to all the stakeholders including the defendants in the suit in question. All contentions are kept open. Time for compliance is six months.

¶50

It is open to the Tahsildar to call for any information or documents from the side of the petitioner so also it is open to the petitioner to produce any of the documents to

¶51

support his claim in terms of decree.

¶52

Costs made easy.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Snb/

Smt Venkatalakshmamma v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Venkatalakshmamma v. the Principal Secretary

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 Basavarajappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

A Veeregowda Vs the Land Tribunal

Sri.Hanumanthaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Doomakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H v Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

B M Renuka Prasad Vs State of Karnataka