Allowed

Kempanna S/O Sakreppa Naik v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2023WP/100213/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an order dated 08/12/2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner allowing a revision petition regarding land mutation. The Court accepted a compromise petition filed by all parties acknowledging a voluntary family settlement on survey No. 155/9.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No.1) was set aside and the compromise petition was accepted.

Kempanna S/O Sakreppa Naik Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14839 WP No. 100213 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 100213 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KEMPANNA S/O. SAKREPPA NAIK, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591224.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed
MOHANKUMARB SHELAR byMOHANKUMARB SHELARDate:
2023.12.20
16:18:00 +0530

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI, D. C COMPOUND, BELAGAVI 590001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL SUB DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW TAHASILDAR MUDALAGI, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591312.

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14839 WP No. 100213 of 2023

¶16

SEVANATHI W/O. BASAPPA NAIK, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. RAJAPUR, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591224.

¶17

LAXMAN S/O. BASAPPA NAIK, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591224.

¶18

SUJATA W/O. BABU NAIK, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ARABENWADI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591224.

¶19

HANAMANT S/O. BASAPPA NAIK, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591224.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. S. B. PATIL, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO 7)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 08/12/2020 PASSED IN RB/RTA/242/2016-2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14839 WP No. 100213 of 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and contesting respondents.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 7 submit that a joint compromise petition is filed regarding settlement among the aforementioned parties. The petitioner and contesting respondents No.4 to 7 are present before the court.

¶28

The dispute is in respect of land bearing R.S.No.155/9 of Rajapur village Taluk Mudalagi measuring 2 acres 20 guntas.

¶29

In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). In terms of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Assistant

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14839 WP No. 100213 of 2023

¶31

Commissioner in exercise of power under Section 136(2) of the Act. The appeal was filed challenging the certification of mutation No.207 of Rajapur village.

¶32

It is stated that Sakreppa was the propositus. He had two sons by name, Basappa and Kempanna. It is stated that Basappa had orally relinquished his right over the property by way of family arrangement in favour of his brother Kempanna. Based on the said alleged relinquishment, mutation was certified. Basappa questioned the said mutation before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal. Challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the legal representatives of Basappa filed revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition.

¶33

Now the parties are present before the court.

¶34

Children of late Basappa, respondents No.4 to 7 admit the relinquishment by way of family settlement in favour of

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14839 WP No. 100213 of 2023

¶36

the brother Kempanna. Accordingly, they have presented the compromise petition.

¶37

After considering the contents of the

¶38

compromise petition and after making enquiry with the parties who admit that they have voluntarily entered into a settlement, this court has accepted the terms of the compromise. The compromise petition is taken on record.

¶39

Parties are directed to affix their signatures in the order sheet.

¶40

Accordingly, the impugned order dated

¶41

08.12.2020 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy

¶42

Commissioner marked at Annexure-D is set aside.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

MBS/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Kempanna S/O Sakreppa Naik v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kempanna S/O Sakreppa Naik 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

Hanamanth S/O Laxman Biradar Patil Vs Balappa S/O Venkappa Biradar Patil

Kamalakshi W/O Sridhar Gunaga Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi S/O Appun Devappa Vs Superintending Engineer(Ele)

Fakkirappa S/O. Mylarappa Kademani Vs Fakkirappa S/O. Gutteppa Kademani

M/S Laxmi Offset Printers Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Laleeta Vs Shri. Teerthappa