Dismissed

Smt Muniyamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2022WP/5797/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner correctly held that revenue authorities cannot resolve disputed title between competing registered instruments and must direct the petitioner to approach a competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed to quash the order dated 11.02.2021 in RP No.109/2016-17 is dismissed.

Smt Muniyamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5797 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5797 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH D/O ALLALAPPA AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS R/A KANEKALLU VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560067

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by YASHODA KRISHNAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NARENDRA D V GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU-560009

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560009

¶16

SRI MOHAN CHALVA S/O C PADMANABHAIAH

¶17

¶18

WP No. 5797 of 2021

¶19

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/A NO.23, 11^TH MAIN ROAD JAYANAGAR 4^TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560011

¶20

SRI NANJAPPA S/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A BANDAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA S. HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R5 SRI. K.VASU, ADVOCATE C/R3 NOTICE TO R4 D/W V/O DTD. 02/08/2022)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.11.2.2021 MADE IN R.P.NO.109/2016-17 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DTD.11.2.2021 MADE IN R.P.NO.109/2016-17 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes

¶29

notice for respondents No.1, 2 and 5. Respondent No.3

¶30

¶31

WP No. 5797 of 2021

¶32

has entered appearance through learned counsel Sri

¶33

K.Vasu, by filing a caveat petition. Notice to respondent No.4 is not required for the following reasons:

¶34

The petitioner who claims to have acquired title in respect of the land in question by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 21.10.1967 approached the 2^nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, in the year 2015 seeking to remove the names of the contesting respondents herein which were entered in the land revenue records consequent to mutation entries made in MR No.8/1989-90 and MR No.98/1997-98. Admittedly, the mutation entries made in favour of the contesting respondents are also by virtue of the registered instrument which was reported to the revenue authorities immediately after the execution of the registered documents. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal setting aside the mutation entries in MR No.8/1989-90 and MR No.98/1997-98 and directed entry

¶35

¶36

WP No. 5797 of 2021

¶37

of the name of the petitioner by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.10.1967. However the contesting respondent approached the revisional authority the Deputy Commissioner in RP No.109/2016-17. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 11.02.2021 at Annexure-E.

¶38

The Deputy Commissioner has held that the entries made in the name of the contesting respondents was also consequent to the registered instrument and therefore at the instance of the petitioners herein, the said entries could not be removed, unless and until there is a declaration made by a competent civil court upholding the title of the petitioners herein.

¶39

Learned Senior Counsel Sri R.S.Ravi, appearing for the petitioners would contend that there is no time limitation prescribed in Section 128 of the Act for reporting acquisition of title/rights under a registered instrument. Attention of this Court is also drawn to Rule 67 of the

¶40

¶41

WP No. 5797 of 2021

¶42

Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and it is submitted that the revenue authorities are duty bound to enter the objections raised at the hands of the party questioning the

¶43

mutation entries.

¶44

On hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent authorities and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is no infirmity that could be found in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. No doubt, Section 128 of the Act makes provision for collecting penalty and entering the names of the parties in whose favour rights are bestowed under a registered instrument. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is found that there are registered instruments in favour of the contesting respondents also and their names were entered in terms of the registered instrument way back in the year 1989-90

¶45

and 1997-98, wherein the title to the property has changed two hands. Although the registered instrument

¶46

¶47

WP No. 5797 of 2021

¶48

in favour of the petitioners is dated prior to the other two instruments, nevertheless even in terms of Section 128 of the Act, if there was no subsequent transaction on the

¶49

land and no other entries were made, the revenue authorities could have considered collecting penalty at the hands of the petitioners while entering their names by removing the names of their vendor. That is not the position at present. Two mutation entries have been made by the revenue authorities one in the year 1989-90 and the other in the year 1997-98 on the strength of the registered instrument entries in the revenue records. The Deputy Commissioner is therefore right in holding that it would not be permissible for the revenue authorities to go into the disputed question of title. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner while holding that the petitioner has to approach a competent civil court and obtain a declaration. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶50

¶51

WP No. 5797 of 2021

¶52

Needless to observe that if a declaration is sought by

¶53

the petitioners, the civil court is required to decide the case on its merits and not go only by the entry in the revenue records. The entry in revenue records have only primitive value.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

KLY

Smt Muniyamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Muniyamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Sri. Ningegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Patalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Munilakshmamma Vs the Secretary

Nataraju Vs State of Karnataka

Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N M Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka