Disposed

Hanumanthappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2022WP/8029/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that once a Civil Court grants probate of a Will, revenue authorities cannot set aside mutation entries based on it. The Deputy Commissioner was ordered to restore the petitioners' names in the land records pending the outcome of a pending petition for revocation of the Will.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order to set aside revenue entries was set aside, and the petitioners were directed to be restored in the land records with a restriction on alienation till the revocation petition is dis

Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 8029 OF 2020 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HANUMANTHAPPA

¶9

S/O LATE CHIKKA KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶10

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT SY. NO.84 UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560 098

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. M.R. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH, ADVOCATE (NOC))

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶17

BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY M.S BUILDING BENGALURU 560001

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD

¶19

¶20

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶21

BENGALURU 560 009

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560002

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYANA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009

¶24

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009

¶25

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR UTTARAHALLI - 4 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, NADA KACHERI, BENGALURU BENGALURU 560098

¶26

SMT. AMRUTHA USHA W/O LATE H.V. NANDAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶27

SRI VINAYAKRISHNA S/O H.V. NANDAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶28

RESPONDENT NOS.7 & 8 BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 81, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 13^TH AND 14^TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560003

¶29

¶30

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.SESHU.V, HCGP FOR R1 TO R6 SRI. ASHOK HARANAHLLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VINAYAKA.B, ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R8)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.03.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN REVISION PETITION NO.271/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO CONTINUE THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF SURVEY NO.83, MEASURING 1 ACRE 11 GUNTAS INCLUSIVE OF 7 GUNTAS OF KHATAR AND SURVEY NO.84 MEASURING 2 ACRES 36 GUNTAS OUT OF 7 ACRES 30 GUNTAS INCLUSIVE OF 1 ACRES 11 GUNTAS OF KHARAB THEREIN OF UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petitioners are aggrieved by the operative portion of the impugned order dated 06.03.2020 passed by second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in Revision Petition No.271/2019.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶39

It is the contention of the petitioners that Smt.H.V.Rajalakshmi, had executed a Will dated 25.01.1990, bequeathing two pieces of property in their

¶40

favour, in Sy.No.83 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas and Sy.No.84/2 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas. After the demise of Smt.Rajalakshmi, the petitioners got the Will probated in P&SC No.291/2013. On the strength of the said probate granted by the Civil Court, the petitioners approached the revenue authorities and the concerned Tahsildar passed orders in M.R.No.H 14/2015-16 (in respect of Sy.No.83) and M.R.No.T1/2016-17 (Sy.No.84/2), entering the name of the petitioners in the land records. However, since the contesting respondents herein sought to interfere in the lands, the petitioners filed O.S.No.4766/2015 seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants.

¶41

Thereafter, the contesting respondents herein filed O.S.No.317/2017 challenging the Will dated 25.01.1990, left behind by Smt.Rajalakshmi. Almost at the same time, the contesting respondents also approached the Assistant

¶42

¶43

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶44

Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division in

¶45

R.A.No.392/2017, invoking the appellate jurisdiction under

¶46

Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), seeking to set aside the mutation entries made in M.R.No.H 14/201516 and M.R.No.T1/2016-17. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal.

¶47

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R.Naik, appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Deputy Commissioner, in the impugned order, has rightly held that the petitioners herein had obtained the probate certificate of the Will and on the basis of the said Will, mutation was effected in the name of the petitioners. However, he further notices that the contesting respondents herein have filed O.S.No.317/2017 challenging the Will as well as the Probate Certificate. Having arrived at the said position, the Deputy Commissioner directed restoration of the revenue entries

¶48

in the name of the original owner viz., Smt.Rajalakshmi.

¶49

¶50

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶51

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that although it is not clear from the impugned order, which directs that it is just and proper to restore the revenue entries which were standing prior to passing of the impugned order, whether it was intended by the Deputy Commissioner to restore the name of Smt.Rajalakshmi. Nevertheless, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. As a consequence, the name of the petitioners have been removed from the revenue records and the name of one of the contesting respondents has been entered in the land revenue records.

¶52

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the law

¶53

on the point is well settled that when once a competent Court has granted probate of a Will, then so long as it remains in force, it is conclusive as to the due execution and validity of the Will unless it is duly revoked as per law. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on

¶54

Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka Vs. Jasjit Singh and Others

¶55

(1993) 2 SCC 507. The learned Senior Counsel would

¶56

¶57

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶58

further submit that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Jayamma and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka

¶59

and Others (ILR 2020 KAR 1449) has reiterated the position of law that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties. It is the exclusive domain of the competent Civil Court to adjudicate the dispute/title in respect of the immovable properties and ultimately if any decree is passed by the competent civil court, the same shall be binding on the parties as well as the revenue authorities.

¶60

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for respondents No.7 and 8 submits that although the suit in O.S.No.317/2017 filed at the hands of the contesting respondents herein came to be disposed of by rejecting the plaint on the ground that a probate granted by a civil court cannot be questioned in an original suit, the contesting respondents have thereafter sought revocation of the Will in P&SC No.524/2022 arraigning the petitioners herein as respondents. Learned

¶61

¶62

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶63

Senior Counsel would submit that the lands in question along with the other properties belonging to the contesting respondents were notified for acquisition at the hands of the Bangalore Development Authority. The contesting respondents filed W.P.Nos.993-994/2000 challenging the acquisition notifications. Since the said writ petitions were dismissed right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, nevertheless, another set of writ petitions were filed in W.P.Nos.13374-13375/2013 and this Court allowed the petitions and quashed the acquisition notification insofar as the lands in question. The BDA has preferred an appeal in W.A.No.595/2016 and the appeal came to be dismissed on 03.01.2020. The BDA has thereafter, filed SLP(C) No.13474/2020 and the same is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶64

Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that

¶65

it has been the contention of the contesting respondents that the Will in question is unregistered and not a genuine

¶66

document. In that context, attention of this Court is

¶67

¶68

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶69

drawn to a registered partition deed dated 24.03.2010, where one of the parties is Smt.H.V.Rajalakshmi. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that Smt.Rajalakshmi has said nothing about the Will said to have been executed in favour of the petitioners in the Partition Deed which is a subsequent registered instrument. On the contrary, it is stated that as and when the case is decided (with reference to the litigation concerning acquisition proceedings), and the contesting respondents succeed, the lands in question shall be given to the share of Sri H.V.Nanda Kumar (husband of respondent No.7 and father of respondent No.8). Learned Senior Counsel seeks to contend that there is enough material to substantiate the fact that the Will in question is not genuine and at this juncture, if the khata is restored in the name of the petitioners, it would prejudice the case of the contesting respondents and may cause irreparable loss and damage to the contesting respondents.

¶70

10 -

¶71

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶72

Learned Senior Counsel seeks to place reliance on Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal and Others (2002) 1 SCC 33 to contend that the decision in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (supra) has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that the probate granted by a Civil Court merely establishes the factum of Will and does not decide question of title or of the existence of the property. Reliance is also sought to be placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of C.N.Nagendra Singh Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner , Bangalore District and Others (ILR 2002 KAR 2750) and R.V.Gopalkrishna Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga and Others (2009 SCC OnLine Kar 564).

¶73

Having heard the learned Senior Counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that, even in terms of the judgments referred to by the learned Senior Counsels, when once a probate certificate is granted by a competent Civil Court, the revenue authorities cannot sit

¶74

11 -

¶75

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶76

over decision of the Court. In fact, both the revenue authorities i.e, the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have rightly held that the mutation entries effecting the names of the petitioners herein in the revenue records were carried out consequent to the probate certificate. Unless a further order revoking the Will is passed by the Civil Court at the instance of the contesting respondents herein in P&SC No.524/2022 or any other proceedings, the names of the petitioners cannot be removed from the revenue records. To that extent, the contentions of the petitioners are required to be upheld while setting aside the operative portion of the impugned order passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner.

¶77

Consequently, the impugned order stands modified while directing restoration of the names of the petitioners in the land records. However, it is made clear that the petitioners herein shall not alienate or create any encumbrance in respect of the lands in question till

¶78

12 -

¶79

WP No. 8029 of 2020

¶80

disposal of P&SC No.524/2022 on the file of the City Civil Judge at Bengaluru.

¶81

The fourth respondent-Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, is hereby directed to restore the names of the petitioners in terms of M.R.No.H 14/2015-16 and

¶82

M.R.No.T1/2016-17, forthwith.

¶83

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

JT/-

Hanumanthappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanthappa 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

Cases cited

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

Smt Muniyamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri N M Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka