Allowed

Sri N Gangaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2022WP/6766/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition to quash an endorsement by the Thasildar that refused to record possession and mutation based on a Civil Court decree. The Court held that such decrees do not require registration and directed the Thasildar to effectuate mutation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement and Writ of Mandamus to the Thasildar to effect mutation within eight weeks.

Sri N Gangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6766 OF 2022(KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.N.GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMAHAIAH, RESIDING AT SUTTHALLI PALYA, MARAKUPPE POST, SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.RAJANNA S, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA TOWN AND TALUKA AND DISTRICT.

¶13

THE THASILDAR, MAGADI TALUK OFFICE, MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14.2.2022 ISSUED BY TASILDAR, MAGOD BEARING NO.RRT/CR/493/20-21VIDE

¶17

¶18

ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER REPRESENTATIONS DT 20.4.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E1 AND 2 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TRANSFER THE REVENUE DOCUMENTS TO THE PETITIONER NAME IN RESPECT OF LANDS IN SY.NO.69/1 MEASURING 2.02 ACRES OUT OF 4.04 ACRES, SY.NO.69/2 MEASURING 1.04 ACRES OUT OF 2.08 ACRES, BOTH ARE SITUATD AT KORAMANGALA VILLAGE, SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND LAND IN SY.NO.265 MEASURING 1.00 ACRE OUT OF 2.00 ACRES AND SY.NO.266 MEASURING 1.02 ACRES OUT OF 2.04 ACRES SITUATED AT GUDEMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AS PER THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 4.12.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.299/2015 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MAGADI ANNEXURE-D

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is grieving before the Writ Court against

¶22

the Endorsement dated 14.02.2022 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-H which reads as under:

¶23

“vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄ, ªÀiÁUÀr vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ,ªÀiÁUÀr

¶24

£ÀA.Dgï.Dgï.n./¹Dgï/493/20-21 ¢£ÁAPÀ:14/02/22

¶25

»A§gÀºÀ

¶26

ªÀiÁUÀr vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¸ÉÆÃ®ÆgÀÄ ºÉÆÃ§½ PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄAUÀ® UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.69/1gÀ°è 2-02JPÀgÉ/UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ¤£À SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ §UÉÎ ¤ÃªÀÅ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛÃj. F §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶27

ªÀiÁUÀr vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¸ÉÆÃ®ÆgÀÄ ºÉÆÃ§½ PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄAUÀ® UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.69/1gÀ°è 2-02JPÀgÉ/UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ rQæ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ §UÉÎ Cfð¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ. gÁ¤¸ÉÆÃgÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ UÀAUÀAiÀÄå ©£ï £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ SÁvÉ

¶28

¶29

§zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ rQæ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¥À£ÉÆAzÀAtAyPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸À°è¸À ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è ªÉÄÃ®ä£À« ¸À°è¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä vÀªÀÄä F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.

¶30

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¯ÉÃ EqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ.”

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

¶32

argues that he Endorsement of the kind could not have been issued inasmuch as, the decree of the Court needs to be acted upon for mutation of entries in terms of the proviso to Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the production of Section - 11E sketches as well, as required under the proviso of Section 128 of the 1964 Act.

¶33

Learned AGA on request having accepted notice for the official respondents opposes the petition contending that the Civil Court Decree is not registered and therefore, the registration being a sine quo non under Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 decree of the kind cannot be acted upon. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶35

parties and having perused the petition papers, this

¶36

¶37

Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, Civil Court Decree of the kind does not require registration, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Secondly, petitioner has already produced 11E Sketches as well. In view of this, the impugned Endorsement is liable to be voided and a direction needs to be issued.

¶38

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned Endorsement; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the third respondent to effect mutation of entries in respect of the subject property in accordance with Civil Court Decree within eight weeks and report compliance

¶39

to the Registrar General of this Court failing which, contempt action may be taken against the erring officials/s.

¶40

Now, no costs.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Bsv

Sri N Gangaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Gangaiah v. the 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

Chikkamuniyappa S/O Sadappa Since Dead by His Lrs Motamma Vs Abdul Sattar Khan S/O Late Abdul Raheem Sab Since Dead by His Lrs Smt Parveen Taj

Rangaramaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Rangaramaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Lalji Karsan Patel Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kenchegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

H B Gopal Vs the Deputy Commissioner