Allowed

Sri. Shanthilal Mutha v. the Special Deputy COMMISSIONER-1

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2022WP/7284/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue mutations based on registered sale and partition deeds were challenged by successors of a person whose title had been extinguished by a civil decree. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the Assistant Commissioner's and Deputy Commissioner's orders, and restored the Tahasildar's order and mutation entries.

What did the court decide?

Assistant Commissioner's and Deputy Commissioner's orders quashed; Tahasildar's order and entries in M.R.Nos.17/2004-05 and 20/2004-05 restored.

Sri. Shanthilal Mutha Vs the Special Deputy… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

W.P.No.7284/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SHANTHILAL MUTHA

¶9

S/O. LATE CHUNNILAL MUTHA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, "NARAYAN NIVAS",

¶10

4^TH CROSS, NEAR NIRMALA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, SHANTHINAGAR,

¶11

BANGALORE-560 027

¶12

SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY

¶13

1(a) RAJI BAI

¶14

W/O LATE SHANTILAL MUTHA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.74, NARAYAN NIVAS CHURCH ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027

¶15

1(b) BHAVAR LAL MUTHA

¶16

S/O.SHANTILAL MUTHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.74, NARAYAN NIVAS CHURCH ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027

¶17

1(c) DINESH MUTHA

¶18

S/O.SHANTILAL MUTHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.74, NARAYAN NIVAS CHURCH ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027

¶19

¶20

1(d) HITESH MUTHA

¶21

S/O SHANTILAL MUTHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO.74, NARAYAN NIVAS CHURCH ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027

¶22

1(e) ASHA JAJU D/O SHANTILAL MUTHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.74, NARAYAN NIVAS CHURCH ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027

¶23

1(f) ANJU BHANSALI

¶24

D/O. SHANTILAL MUTHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.74, NARAYAN NIVAS CHURCH ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027

¶25

(AMENDMENT ALLOWED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.8.2019)

¶26

… PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT.LAKSHA KALAPPA &

¶28

SMT.VISHRUTHI VIJAY, ADVOCATES)

¶29

AND:

¶30

1 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-1 BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT-1

¶31

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE-1

¶32

3 . THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

¶33

¶34

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-1

¶35

4 . SMT. K. MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O. LATE KRISHNAMACHAR,

¶36

5 . SMT.K. RAMAMANI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O. LATE KRISHNAMACHAR,

¶37

6 . SRI. SRINIVASACHAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE HANUMANTHACHAR,

¶38

7 . SRI. PADMANABHACHAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. LATE HANUMANTHACHAR

¶39

SINCE DEAD BY LRs.

¶40

7(a) SMT.MAMATHA W/O LATE PADMANABHACHAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶41

7(b) SRI.PUNEETH S/O.LATE PADMANABHACHAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶42

7(c) SRI.NARAYAN S/O.LATE PADMANABHACHAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶43

ALL ARE R/AT OPPOSITE NERALURU P.O., NEAR KARAGADAMMA TEMPLE NERALUR POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 562 (AMENDED V/O DATED 3/10)

¶44

¶45

3 TO 7 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER B.RAVI KUMAR, MAJOR S/O.H.S.VENKAT RAO R/A NO.4, 3^RD MAIN, PUTTENAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR 7^TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078

¶46

8 . SRI H. VENKATESH S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT. NO.27, SY.NO.9, 2^ND STAGE, 8^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, MARUTHINAGARA, ULLAL POST, BANGALORE CITY

¶47

9 . SMT. SUCHETA RAJ W/O ARUNKUMAR M.S., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, "SHIVANILAY", NEXT TO VIJAYA BANK, B.H. ROAD, SHIMOGA - 577 201

¶48

10 . SMT. SHOBHA W/O M.J. SIDHARUDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶49

11 . SRI M.J. SIDHARUDA S/O JOGIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶50

10 AND 11 ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.5, 7^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, OPP. SRIRAMPURA LAYOUT, JNANABHARATHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 056

¶51

¶52

12 . L. ROOPASHRI D/O N. LANKASUNDER, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶53

13 . L. SHILPASHRI D/O N. LANKASUNDER, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶54

14 . L.DEEPASHRI D/O N. LANKASUNDER, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶55

12 TO 14 ARE R/AT.NO.12, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST STAGE, 5^TH PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 044

¶56

15 . THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT.NO.25, BEHIND BHAGAWAN BUDDHA HOMEOPATHI COLLEGE, JNANABHARATHI, BENGALURU - 56

¶57

16 . UMESHKUMAR S/O MOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT. NO.907/3, 6^TH CROSS, OPP. JAIN TEMPLE, K.N. EXTENSION, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU -22

¶58

(8 TO 16 ARE AMENEDED V.O. DATED 10.08.2016)

¶59

¶60

17 . SRI.HONNAIAH S/O. CHIK MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. BILLANAKOTE VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶61

18 . SMT. LINGAMMA W/O LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT. 156, VADDAR HALLI VILLAGE, KADABAGERE POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶62

19 . SMT. RANGLAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE PUTTARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT. MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE, UDUKUNTE POST, MAGADI TALUK, SOLUR HOBLI, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶63

(17 TO 19 ARE AMENEDED V.O. DATED 06.09.2016)

¶64

20 . SRI N. MAHESH S/O S.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT.NO.G-52, 1^ST CROSS, "C" STREET MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 23

¶65

21 . SMT. K.R. JYOTHI W/O M. RAJAMOULI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT. NO.201/3, COTTONPETE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 32.

¶66

¶67

22 . SMT. R.HEMALATA W/O B.P. MAHENDRA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT. NO.113, SANYASIKUNTE, BHAVANI NAGAR, GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 19.

¶68

23 . K. RAMA S/O V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, NO.122, SHANTHILAL MUTHA LAYOUT, SEEGEHALLI GATE, YASHAVANTAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 23.

¶69

24 . G.R. SRINATH S/O LATE G.V. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT. NO.1, SHREESHAILA HOUSE, NEAR J.S.S. SCHOOL, TEACHERS COLONY, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU - 62.

¶70

25 . R. VIVEK S/O A. RANGANATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT. NO.3, 8^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶71

26 . SRI.BALASUBRAMANYA S/O LATE K.V. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT. 86, SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE, KODIGEHALLI POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 22.

¶72

¶73

27 . SRI S. MURALIDHAR S/O B.R. SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT.567, SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE, KODIGEHALLI POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 22.

¶74

28 . SMT. AMBIKA.S.N. W/O PRAKASH.M., AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT.34/1, RUDRESHWAR NILAYA, 4^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 79.

¶75

29 . SMT.H.LAKSHMIDEVI W/O HANUMANRAM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT.NO.38, 8^TH CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU-72.

¶76

30 . SHRI S. SHIVARAM S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT.NO.1/22, 16^TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, 4^TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 96.

¶77

31 . SMT.G.SHANTI W/O G. MANIKAM VELU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT. NO.17, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BENGALURU - 21.

¶78

¶79

32 . S.RUDRESHBABU S/O R. SEETAPPA, AGED ABUT 47 YEARS, R/AT.NO.34/1, 4^TH CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU -79.

¶80

33 . B.C.MAMATA W/O M. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NEAR AMBA MAHESHWARI TEMPLE,ANANDANAPPA CROSS ROAD, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU-79.

¶81

34 . NARAYANSINGH S/O LATE MANGANLALJI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT No.23, J.V.M. BHAVAN, M.I.G. 2ND MAIN ROAD, K.H.B. COLONY, 1^ST STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU-79.

¶82

35 . BHANARAM CHOUDRY S/O KESAJI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT. C/O 227, MAMATHA PROVISION STORE, AAKLU COMPLEX, R.T. STREET, BENGALURU - 53

¶83

36 . NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT.NO.976, 6^TH MAIN, CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT, MARATHALLI, BENGALURU -37.

¶84

37 . SRI PREMRAJ SONI

¶85

¶86

S/O PUKHARAJ SONI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT.NO.19/2, 15^TH CROSS, A BLOCK, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 23.

¶87

38 . KHUMABRAN CHOUDRY S/O RAJAJI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT. C/O NO.14, PUSHPAK MATCHING CENTER, M.I.G., K.H.B. COLONY, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU-79.

¶88

39 . SRI NIRANJAN V. S/O J.VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT. C/O NO.6, N.GOVINDEGOWDA, RAJSA APARTMENTS, NO.77/1, 1^ST CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 3.

¶89

40 . SMT. G.PRAMILA W/O B.G.ANAND, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT. NO.1316 N. GOVINDEGOWDA, 12^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 86.

¶90

SRI.SOHANLAL S/O.RAMLAL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT MANCHANABELE PUNARVASATI COLONY BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶91

¶92

BANGALORE-560 130

¶93

B.G. ANAND S/O T. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT.NO.1316 N. GOVINDEGOWDA, 12^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI PURAM EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 86.

¶94

43 . SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O MASTANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT. 1728, PIPELINE LINK ROAD, KALYANA NAGAR, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU -57

¶95

44 . SMT. PAVANKUMARI W/O MANOHARLAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT.62/63, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTALLI, BENGALURU - 03.

¶96

45 . SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O ARULOLI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT.54/1, SWASTI ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 27.

¶97

46 . SRI EAREGOWDA S/O THAMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT.NO.42/2, MARAPPA LAYOUT, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 98

¶98

¶99

47 . SRI B.K.HANUMANTARAYAPPA S/O KAMABADA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT.1552, CORPORATION COLONY, 6TH CROSS, GOVINDARAJ NAGAR, BENGALURU - 79.

¶100

48 . SMT. MITU SHARMA W/O MUKESH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT.NO.9/2, 4^TH CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 23.

¶101

SRI.NARAYANLAL CHOWDRY S/O.SRIHEMAII AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT 9/1, LAXMI ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-27 (20 TO 49 ARE AMENEDED V.O. DATED 17.08.2017)

¶102

K.V.GOVINDARAJU S/O.VENKATACHALAIAH KITTANAHALLI DHAKALE DENANJAIAJPALYA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

¶103

(AMENEDED V.O.DATED 08.03.2021)

¶104

SUNITA GOSWAMI D/O LATE PREM SAGAR GOSWAMI W/O.SRI SACHIT KUMAR RAMDAS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT SADER ROAD, AMBIKAPUR SURGUJA, CHATTISGARH-497 001

¶105

¶106

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI.SACHIT KUMAR RAMDAS

¶107

(AMENEDED V.O.DATED 24.05.2022)

¶108

… RESPONDENTS

¶109

(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

¶110

SRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; V/O DATED 17.08.2017, NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI.SREEVATSA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7 AND FOR R17 TO R19; SRI.S.RAJENDRA, FOR SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R9 TO R11; R7(a), R7(b) & R7(c) ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; SRI.ABHIJITH M.M., ADVOCATE FOR R12 TO R16 AND R24 TO R31; SRI.VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R20 TO R23 & R49; SRI.R.GEORGE LAZARUS, ADVOCATE FOR R32 TO R36; SRI.V.N.SHANKAREGOWDA, ADV. FOR R37 TO R43; SRI.M.G.RAVISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R44 TO R48; SRI.SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR R50; SRI.S.SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R51)

¶111

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-T DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.R.A.(BNA) NO.202/2013-14 BY R-2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-W DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN R.P.NO.INA.CR.11/2015-16 AND ETC.

¶112

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

¶113

¶114

ORDER

¶115

Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, are not in dispute:

¶116

(a) The lands bearing Sy.Nos.52, 53, 56, 57, 58

¶117

and 59 of Seegehalli village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, totally measuring 40 acres belonged to one Lakshmipathi Naidu. The said Lakshmipathi Naidu conveyed the properties under a registered sale deed dated 23.04.1945 to one Sanjeevachar. Sanjeevachar executed an agreement of sale in favour of one Patel Anjane Gowda.

¶118

(b) Since the agreement of sale dated 28.06.1947 did not culminate in a sale deed, a suit was filed by Patel Anjane Gowda in O.S. No.227 of 1947 against Sanjeevachar seeking to enforce the agreement of sale dated 28.06.1947. The said suit came to be decreed on 20.12.1947.

¶119

¶120

¶121

dismissed and was also confirmed in Regular Second Appeal No.5 of 1953.

¶122

(d) Since the sale deed was not executed despite the decree, Patel Anjane Gowda filed an execution petition in E.P. No.335 of 1956. In this execution proceeding, a sale deed was executed in favour of Patel Anjane Gowda on 23.02.1957 and the same was also registered.

¶123

(e) Thereafter, the legal heir of Patel Anjane Gowda i.e., Patel Muniappa executed a registered sale deed on 19.08.1992 in favour of one Shanthilal Mutha— the present petitioner and Jayanthilal.

¶124

(f) Pursuant to the said sale deed, the revenue authorities effected the mutation in the names of Shanthilal Mutha and Jayanthilal, vide M.R. No.2/199394.

¶125

¶126

(g) On 09.12.2003, a registered partition deed

¶127

was executed between Shanthilal Mutha and Jayanthilal. Under the said partition, an extent of 32 acres 22 guntas out of the total extent of 40 acres was allotted to Shanthilal Mutha and the remaining 7 acres 18 guntas was allotted to Jayanthilal.

¶128

(h) This registered partition deed was also given effect to in the revenue records by mutating the names of Shanthilal Mutha and Jayanthilal vide M.R. Nos.17/2004-05 and 20/2004-05.

¶129

(i) It is the contention of the learned senior counsel Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, that during the year 2007-08, Sanjeevachar and others filed an appeal in R.A. No.722/2007-08 against the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

¶130

¶131

(j) In the said appeal, the mutation effected pursuant to the registered partition deed dated 09.12.2003 i.e., M.R. Nos.17/2004-05 and 20/2004-05 were alone challenged. This was challenged by H.R.Krishnamachar (father of respondent Nos.4 and 5), Srinivasachar (respondent No.6) and Padmanabhachar (respondent No.7) . These three persons claimed that they were the legal heirs of Sanjeevachar, who was their uncle.

¶132

(k) The Assistant Commissioner after hearing the parties, by an order dated 12.09.2011, proceeded to allow the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the mutation claim made by Shanthilal Mutha and Jayanthilal.

¶133

(l) On remand, the Tahasildar by an order dated 04.12.2012 rejected the claim put forth by these persons viz., H.R.Krishnamachar, Srinivasachar and Padmanabhachar and confirmed the mutation made in

¶134

¶135

favour of Shanthilal Mutha and Jayanthilal vide M.R. Nos.17/2004-05 and 20/2004-05.

¶136

(m) Being aggrieved by this order, H.R.Krishnamachar, Srinivasachar and Padmanabhachar preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner once again under Section 136(2) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the appeal and by order dated 30.04.2015, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of mutation made in favour of the petitioner and Jayanthilal.

¶137

(n) As against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136 (3) of the Act. This revision was also dismissed by the Special Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 11.01.2016, which is impugned in this writ petition. A direction was also issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner to mutate the names of the three persons−H.R.Krishnamachar, Srinivasachar and

¶138

¶139

Padmanabhachar, who had filed the appeal challenging the mutation.

¶140

It is the contention of the learned senior counsel

¶141

for the petitioners that by virtue of the decree passed against Sanjeevachar in O.S. No.227 of 1947, which was confirmed by this Court in R.S.A. No.5 of 1953, Sanjeevachar had lost all right, title and interest over the said lands and pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of Patel Anjane Gowda by the Civil Court, which was also registered, the conveyance of title from Sanjeevachar to Patel Anjane Gowda was complete and final. It is his contention that once the title stood conveyed from Sanjeevachar in favour of Patel Anjane Gowda on 23.02.1957, there was absolutely no semblance of right, title and interest in the said lands available in favour of Sanjeevachar so as to enable anybody claiming under Sanjeevachar to oppose the entries in the revenue records.

¶142

¶143

2.1 He also submitted that, as a matter of fact, one K.C.Suresh and Venkata Hanumaiah had thereafter staked a claim for conferment of occupancy rights under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 by filing a Form No.7, but the said claim of K.C.Suresh and Venkata Hanumaiah was however rejected by the Land Tribunal. In the said proceedings, Sanjeevachar and Patel Muniappa─the son of Patel Anjane Gowda, the person who had purchased the property from Sanjeevachar, were both arrayed as respondents.

¶144

2.2 It is also submitted that Patel Muniappa, who had succeeded to the property had also filed a suit in O.S. No.633 of 1974 against K.C.Suresh and Sanjeevachar, seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the lands in question.

¶145

2.3 The learned senior counsel submitted that

¶146

K.C.Suresh had in fact claimed that he had purchased

¶147

the property, notwithstanding the fact that he had made a claim that he was the tenant, by filing Form No.7. It is

¶148

¶149

submitted by the learned senior counsel that this suit filed by Patel Muniappa seeking for declaration that he was the owner, was decreed on 27.11.1978 and this decree has not been challenged and has thus attained finality.

¶150

2.4 He, therefore, submits that in the light of the conveyance in favour of Patel Anjane Gowda in O.S. No.227 of 1947 coupled with the declaratory decree obtained by his legal heir-Patel Muniappa in O.S. No.633 of 1974, it is beyond doubt that Sanjeevachar had no right at all over the lands in question. He submitted that since Sanjeevachar had absolutely no right over the property, the appeal filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7, who claimed that they had succeeded to the property from their uncle-Sanjeevachar, could not have been obviously entertained by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶151

2.5 He submitted that the revenue authorities were bound by the decrees passed by the Civil Court and also by the registered sale deeds and therefore, they could

¶152

¶153

not have entertained a claim made by the legal representatives of Sanjeevachar. It was his submission that, since such a baseless claim was entertained and granted, the entire proceedings were void ab initio and were required to be set aside.

¶154

2.6 He also submitted that since the petitioner and Jayanthilal had purchased the property under registered sale deeds and these were required to be given effect to in the revenue records as contemplated under Sections 127 and 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, he submitted the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing entering the name of respondent Nos.4 to 7 could not be sustained and should therefore, be quashed.

¶155

On the contrary, Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6-the legal representatives of Krishnamachar (appellant No.1 before the Assistant Commissioner), strenuously contended that this writ petition cannot be entertained

¶156

¶157

for the simple reasons that it was admitted in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the petitioners had formed a layout and had sold all the sites formed therein. It was stated that since the petitioner-Shanthilal Mutha did not have any subsisting interest, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. He also sought to highlight the fact that the Encumbrance Certificates produced by the petitioners themselves indicate that several persons had acquired title from the petitioners and therefore, the present petitioners had no locus standi to even maintain this writ petition.

¶158

Sri.Sreevatsa, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7, 17 to 19, contended that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner would have to be confirmed, since the Land Tribunal, in the proceedings initiated at the behest of K.C.Suresh and Venkata Hanumaiah, had recorded a finding that Sanjeevachar was in possession of the property and this finding having not been challenged, the

¶159

¶160

petitioner could not seek for his name to be entered in the revenue records.

¶161

Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.9 to 11, also contended that order of the Land Tribunal precludes the entering of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. He vehemently contended that this writ petition would have to be dismissed with exemplary cost, since the petitioners were guilty of suppression of material facts. He submitted that the petitioner-Shanthilal Mutha had filed O.S. No.664 of 2015 against the vendors of respondent

¶162

Nos.9 to 11 and after being unsuccessful in obtaining an exparté interim order, he chose to withdraw the suit. Thereafter, he had filed another suit in O.S. No.1154 of 2015 against respondent Nos.9 to 11 and in the said suit, he was unable to get an exparté interim order and ultimately withdrew the said suit.

¶163

5.1 He submitted that another suit was filed in O.S.

¶164

No.1031 of 2016 and that was also withdrawn after he

¶165

¶166

was unable to secure an exparté interim order. He submitted that since these suits had been filed prior to the present writ petition and were not mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶167

5.2 The learned counsel also contended that in

¶168

view of the averments in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition, in which the petitioner had admitted that he had no subsisting right, the petition ought not to be entertained.

¶169

5.3 He submitted that Jayanthilal who had purchased the property along with the petitioner was not a party in this petition and therefore, the petition was misconceived and was required to be rejected.

¶170

5.4 A submission was also made by the learned

¶171

counsel that though a sale deed was obtained through

¶172

¶173

the process of the Court and was registered, possession

¶174

was actually not obtained through the Court and it continued with Sanjeevachar and therefore, the revenue entries cannot be entered in the name of the petitioner.

¶175

The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner does not possess the locus standi to file the writ petition since he has admittedly formed sites and alienated the sites formed thereon, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it is the name of the petitioner which is ordered to be deleted from the revenue records and in its place, the name of the legal representatives of Sanjeevachar is ordered to be entered. If a person's name is ordered to be deleted from the revenue records, it is that person who would have locus standi to question the deletion of his name. It is also to be stated here that even if the petitioner had sold the lands that he had purchased, he would nevertheless be under obligation to ensure that any dispute relating to his title is resolved even after the

¶176

¶177

property is sold. In this view of the matter, the argument that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition is not accepted.

¶178

As noticed above, it is the admitted fact by all the parties that the lands in question were the subject matter of the decree in O.S. No.227 of 1947 which ultimately culminated in the execution of the sale deed in favour of Patel Anjane Gowda by the Civil Court and the said sale deed was also registered.

¶179

It is not in dispute that this decree was passed against Sanjeevachar. It is also not in dispute that Sanjeevachar challenged the decree passed in favour of Patel Anjane Gowda by filing an appeal and also a second appeal and he was not able to get the decree passed against him reversed. It is therefore clear that whatever title Sanjeevachar possessed over the lands in question stood extinguished by the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No.227 of 1947.

¶180

¶181

Once it is held that Sanjeevachar had lost all his title over the lands in question, the question of respondent Nos.4 to 7, who claim title under Sanjeevachar, opposing the entering of the petitioners name in the revenue records cannot arise at all. Since admittedly, respondent Nos.4 to 7 are claiming title only through Sanjeevachar, by virtue of their admitted position that they are successors-in-interest of Sanjeevachar, they would necessarily be bound by the decree that had been passed against Sanjeevachar, which was also confirmed by this Court in R.S.A. No.5 of 1953.

¶182

In other words, the legal representatives of Sanjeevachar would have absolutely no locus standi to oppose or to have any say in the matter of entering the name of any person in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were in serious error in entertaining the

¶183

¶184

appeals filed by the legal representatives of

¶185

Sanjeevachar.

¶186

It is also to be stated here that Patel Anjane Gowda had secured title over the lands in question under a sale deed executed by the Civil Court which was also registered and had thus become the absolute owner of the lands in question and on his death, his legal heirs had succeeded to the properties. As stated above, it is admitted that the legal heir of Patel Anjane Gowda i.e., Patel Muniappa had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and Jayanthilal on 19.08.1992. Thus, the conveyance of title from Sanjeevachar to Patel Anjane Gowda and thereafter, to the petitioner and Jayanthilal being clear and complete, no other person would have any right to question this flow of title from Sanjeevachar to the petitioner and Jayanthilal.

¶187

It is the fundamental requirement under Sections 127 and 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act that the persons who have acquired title to have their names

¶188

¶189

entered in the revenue records and thus, be liable to pay tax. Since there is a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner and Jayanthilal, obviously, the revenue entries were rightly mutated in their names.

¶190

It is also to be stated here that there is admittedly a registered partition deed between the petitioner and Jayanthilal dated 19.12.2003 by which the property that they had jointly purchased was sought to be divided. Since, as stated above, under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the revenue entries should also reflect the said division which was by way of a registered instrument and the entries were rightly mutated vide M.R. Nos.17/2004-05 and 20/2004-05. Since the mutation entries, were made pursuant to the registered instruments, they could not have been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and that too, at the behest of persons who had lost all rights over the lands in question.

¶191

¶192

Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 to 11 , however, sought to place great reliance on the order of the Land Tribunal passed on the claim of K.C.Suresh and Venkata Hanumaiah. He sought to highlight the fact that the Land Tribunal has recorded a finding that Sanjeevachar continued in possession notwithstanding the decree he had suffered and therefore, on that score, the revenue entries could not be changed in favour of the persons claiming under Patel Anjane Gowda, who had obtained the decree.

¶193

This argument is required to be stated only to be rejected. Admittedly, the proceedings before the Land Tribunal were the claims made by virtue of a Form No.7 filed by K.C.Suresh and Venkata Hanumaiah. If, in such proceedings, the claim by the tenant is rejected and an observation is made that the possession continued with Sanjeevachar, that would not, by any stretch of imagination, lead to the inference that the title remained with Sanjeevachar.

¶194

¶195

The only question that was to be considered by the Land Tribunal was whether the applicants therein had proved their claim as tenants and when that claim was not established, the Land Tribunal had to necessarily reject their claim. An observation in those proceedings that the possession continued in favour of Sanjeevachar cannot lead to the assumption that Sanjeevachar was in fact in possession of the lands in question.

¶196

It has to be noticed here that Sanjeevachar had suffered a decree at the hands of the Civil Court, which was confirmed right up to this Court in R.S.A. No.5 of 1953. If Sanjeevachar had suffered a decree, which was confirmed right upto this Court way back in the year 1953, it would be improper to the Land Tribunal to have disregarded the decree which Sanjeevachar had suffered at the hands of the Civil Court and hold that Sanjeevachar was in possession and that too, when it was deciding the claim of a tenant who had filed an application in Form No.7. Therefore, the reliance placed

¶197

¶198

on such an observation by the learned senior counsel for

¶199

the respondents cannot be accepted and the same stands rejected.

¶200

It has to be stated here that respondent Nos.9 to 11 and 17 to 19 are admittedly the purchasers from people who claimed title under Sanjeevachar. Admittedly, these respondents have purchased the property during the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. In other words, in the strict sense of term, they are the purchasers pendenté lite .

¶201

In this view of the matter, it is clear that none of the purchasers have any right to question the orders that have been passed against their vendors and would necessarily be bound by the orders passed against the vendors.

¶202

It may also be stated here that Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 to 11, submitted

¶203

¶204

that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts, is also of no relevance at all in this writ petition.

¶205

In a proceeding arising out of Section 136 of the Act, the filing of suits for injunction where title was not involved, could not be germane and the non-mentioning of the filing of suits for injunction cannot be considered as suppression of a material fact.

¶206

It has to be stated here that this writ petition is filed impugning the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act.

¶207

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly quashed .

¶208

¶209

The order of the Tahasildar shall stand restored and

¶210

the entries made vide M.R.Nos.17/2004-05 and 20/2004-05 shall stand restored. The name of the petitioner and Jayanthilal shall thus stand restored consequently.

¶211

25. The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶212

SD/JUDGE

¶213

RK CT:AN

Sri. Shanthilal Mutha v. the Special Deputy COMMISSIONER-1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shanthilal Mutha v. the Special Deputy COMMISSIONER-1

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 N a Prasanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Susheela Vs State of Karnataka

Padmanabha Naik Vs the Land Tribunal

Shri Raghupathi Naidu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt B Mangalagowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venkataramana Temple Vs Subraya Hegde & Ors.