Dismissed

Bhimrao S/O Late Vasudevarao Desai v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023WA/100504/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench dismissed a writ appeal against the setting aside of the Deputy Commissioner's order. The Single Judge had restored a disputed mutation entry due to an alleged oral partition, which the appellant never challenged for 18 years. The bench rejected the claim of surprise regarding non-signature and held the claim belongs in a civil suit due to delay.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 was dismissed; the order of the Single Judge legalizing the mutation entry is upheld.

Bhimrao S/O Late Vasudevarao Desai Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13300-DB WA No. 100504 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 100504 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BHIMRAO S/O. LATE VASUDEVARAO DESAI, AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CHANNAPPAN HALI, TQ. KUKANUR, DIST. KOPPAL, PRESENTLY AT HOUSE NO. 482, 5TH CROSS, HEALTH LAYOUT, ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALURU- 560091.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SATISH RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

VINAYAKA B V

¶13

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2023.11.28 11:56:49 +0530

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VIDHI, BENGALURU, PIN-560001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583232.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, TQ. KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583232.

¶17

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13300-DB WA No. 100504 of 2022

¶19

KUKANUR, TQ. KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583232.

¶20

THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, DYAMAPUR, KUKANUR, TQ. KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583232.

¶21

ANANTARAO S/O. VASUDEVARAO DESAI, AGE. 85 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR MAHAMAYADEVI TEMPLE, KUKANUR, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583232.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5, SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH

¶25

COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, PLEASED TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/10/2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 104519/2021 (KLR-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL & ETC.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13300-DB WA No. 100504 of 2022

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This Intra Court appeal is filed by the respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge, assailing the order dated 12.10.2022 passed in W.P No.104519/2021 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.6 herein, by quashing the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 herein.

¶30

The facts in the appeal are that the respondent No.6 herein was the petitioner before the Single Judge, had challenged the order of the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Koppal, passed in exercise of his Jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’). The learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and restored the mutation in the name of respondent No.6.

¶31

Learned counsel Sri. Satish Raichur appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed error in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner as the records clearly indicate that the appellant was not a signatory to the oral partition which is the basis to

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13300-DB WA No. 100504 of 2022

¶33

enter the said mutation. It is submitted that the mutation extract at Annexure-C clearly indicates that there is discrepancy in the dates mentioned in the mutation register and the alleged oral partition was created behind the back of the appellant. It is further submitted that the respondent No.6 has got his name entered in the revenue record in collusion with the revenue officials, however these aspects have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge resulting allowing the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and restoration of mutation in favour of the respondent No.6. Hence, he seeks to allow the Writ Appeal.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, appearing for the contesting respondent No.6 and learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that, the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the aspects of delay while excising the power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is submitted that the revisional authority has exceeded his jurisdiction and has recorded the findings that there is discrepancy in the oral partition and

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13300-DB WA No. 100504 of 2022

¶36

proceeded to set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner. They seek to dismiss the Writ Appeal.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 5, and perused the material available on record the only point that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the Writ Petition?

¶38

To answer the aforesaid point, it is necessary to take note that the parties to the proceedings does not dispute that the Revenue Authorities have mutated the revenue records in the name of respondent No.6 in respect of R.S No.171 measuring 12 acre 25 guntas situated at Dyampur Village of Kukanur taluk, Koppal district. The said mutation was effected on 25.10.2000. It is also not in dispute that the said mutation was challenged by the appellant herein before the respondent No.3 i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Koppal, who has dismissed the appeal on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged in the Revision Petition before the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Koppal and the Deputy Commissioner in

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13300-DB WA No. 100504 of 2022

¶40

exercise of power under Section 136(3) of the Act has set aside the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as M.E No.2/2000/2001 dated 25.10.2000 which was assailed in Writ proceedings before the Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has restored the mutation.

¶41

On careful perusal of the material available on record it is evident that the mutation in favour of the respondent No.6 was effected on 25.10.2000 and for the first time it was challenged by the appellant before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2018 with a delay of more than 18 years in challenging the said mutation.

¶42

This Court has carefully perused the affidavit accompanying the application for seeking condonation of delay held before the Assistant Commissioner, wherein an explanation is offered stating that the appellant came to know about the mutation when he approached the bank for obtaining the loan. Such explanation cannot be accepted as the mutation entry and revenue records are public document, the same was effected after issuing the public notice, hence, such contention is liable to be rejected. This Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned by the appellant in the application for

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13300-DB WA No. 100504 of 2022

¶44

seeking condonation of delay, are not satisfactory explained each days delay. Now the appellant belatedly cannot contend now that he has not signed the alleged partition. Even otherwise also, the appellant is disputing his signature on the partition deed, the date and existence of the partition deed, he has to establish the same before the Civil Court.

¶45

Learned Single Judge in paragraph nos.4 and 5 has recorded the findings that under the Revenue proceedings the Revenue Authority have no jurisdiction to decide or adjudicate upon the signature or existence of the partition deed and further observed that parties are required to establish the rights in a duly constituted civil suit. This Court does not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on the material available on record and we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

¶46

It is evident from record that the appellant has not explained the delay in preferring the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner nor has averred the reason in the revision petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner considered the delay aspect before

¶47

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13300-DB WA No. 100504 of 2022

¶48

reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Hence on this ground also the appellant cannot succeed. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merits in the present appeal.

¶49

Accordingly, same hereby dismissed.

¶50

In view of dismissal of the appeal I.A No.2/2023

¶51

does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same stands disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

PMP

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4

Bhimrao S/O Late Vasudevarao Desai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimrao S/O Late Vasudevarao Desai 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

Shantram Talawar Dcsd Lrs Ranawwa Talawar Dcsd Lrs Dundawwa Talawar Dcsd Lrs Vasant Dundavva Talwar Vs Satteppa S/O Rajappa Belvi Descd Lrs Hanamant S/O. Satyappa Belvi

Shri a Andaneppa S/O Shivappa Byadagi Vs the Principal Secretary

The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Smt. Sharada Shetty W/O a.Bhaskar Shetty

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs Mallikarjun

Sri Shrishail Akki Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramasiddappa Arennavar S/O Gurunath Vs the State of Karnataka