Allowed

Hanamanth S/O Laxman Biradar Patil v. Balappa S/O Venkappa Biradar Patil

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023WP/103313/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed two Deputy Commissioner orders under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for lack of review jurisdiction and violation of limitation periods. It ordered the restoration of the petitioner's name to property records up to the entitled extent, clarifying it did not adjudicate title.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 11.10.2012, 12.05.2016, 09.08.2017, and 01.07.2021 were quashed; petitioner's name to be restored to an extent of 1 acre 38 guntas.

Hanamanth S/O Laxman Biradar Patil Vs Balappa S/O… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 105616 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 103313 OF 2017

¶7

IN WP NO.105616/2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HANMANTH S/O. LAKSHMAPPA BIRADAR PATIL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SORAGAVI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE-587313.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI

¶14

Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR MARG, BENGALURU, PIN CODE-560001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT, NAVNAGAR, BAGALKOT, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE-587103.

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR MUDHOL TALUK MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. PIN CODE-587313.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMAKHANDI SUB-DIVISION, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE-587301.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE-587313.

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶21

BALAPPA VENKAPPA PATIL AGE: 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SORAGAVI VILLAGE, PIN CODE-587313, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶22

MALLAYYA SADASHIVAYYA VIBHUTI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SORAGAVI VILLAGE, PIN CODE-587313. TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶23

GURUPADAYYA SADASHIVAYYA VIBHUTI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SORAGAVI VILLAGE, PIN CODE-587313, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 5, SRI. K. S. KORISHETTAR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.6, SRI. MALLAYYA-RESPONDENT NO.7, SRI. GURUPADAYYA-RESPONDENT NO.8)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/07/2021 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING RP NO. 54/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/08/2017 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMAKHANDI IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING RTC/CR/260/2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶27

IN WP NO.103313/2017

¶28

BETWEEN

¶29

HANAMANTH S/O. LAXMAN BIRADAR PATIL AGE: 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SORAGAVI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI. N. L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND

¶33

BALAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA BIRADAR PATIL AGE: 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SORAGAVI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶34

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶35

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶36

THE TAHASILDAR, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶37

MALLAYYA SADASHIVAYYA VIBHUTI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SORAGAVI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶38

GURUPADAYYA SADASHIVAYYA VIBHUTI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SORAGAVI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶39

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT.

¶40

RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. S. C. HIREMATH AND SRI. S. B. HEBBALLI, ADV. FOR R1, SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.2, 3 AND 6, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO. 4 AND 5 DISPENSED WITH)

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.05.2016 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.6 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.REVIEW/REV/ PHODI/SR/01/2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.10.2012 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.6 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.REV/PHODI/SR/18/2010-11, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶43

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶45

In W.P.No.103313/2017:

¶46

The petitioner is questioning the order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in reviewing his own order dated 11.10.2012. The order dated 11.10.2012 was an order passed in exercise of power under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

¶47

The petition is filed on the premise that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to review his own order passed under Section 56 of the Act, and also on the premise that the revision petition filed under Section 56 of the Act is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years 4 months and the Deputy Commissioner could not have condoned the delay in filing the revision petition. In addition, it is also urged that the impugned orders at Annexure-A and B will unsettle the longstanding mutations entries which are certified based on undisputed registered sale deeds.

¶48

Facts in brief.

¶49

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶50

On 17.05.1958, the original owners of the land

¶51

bearing Sy. No.144 of Soragavi village, Taluk Mudhol, which totally measured 20 Acres and 37 guntas sold 6 acres through a registered sale deed in favour of Hanamanth Ramsingh Rajput. The property purchased by the Hanamanth Ramsingh Rajput was renumbered as R.S.No.144/1 and the remaining extent of the land retained by the original owners measuring 14 acres 37 guntas was renumbered as R.S.No.144/2.

¶52

On 21.04.1978, the purchaser Hanamant Ramsingh Rajput sold entire 6 acres to one Dundappa Kalappa Sutar and in turn, on 27.03.1982, Dundappa Kalappa Sutar sold entire 6 acres to the petitioners’ father. On 11.08.2003, petitioners sold 2 acres of land to Mallayya Vibhuti and 2 acres to Sadashivayya Vibhuti, i.e., respondents No.4 and 5 herein.

¶53

It is also necessary to refer some of the transactions in respect of remaining 14 acres 37 guntas which remained with the original owner, after the sale of 6

¶54

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶55

acres in the year 1958. On 27.07.1962, the 4 acres out of the remaining 14 acres 37 guntas were sold to one Prahlad Ningappa Gurav. It is also relevant to note that the property sold is a part of the property bearing R.S.No.144/2. Thus, the original owners retained title over 10 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.144/2

¶56

This being the position, on 15.09.1982, the one more sale deed was executed allegedly alienating 12 acres to one Balappa Venkappa Biradarpatil, though the original owners held only 10 acres 37 guntas by then.

¶57

On 07.07.1994, respondent No.1 purchased 4 acres from Pralhad Ningappa Gurav who allegedly had purchased 12 acres under the registered sale deed though his vendor had only 10 acres 37 guants. The purchaser Balappa Venkappa Biradarpatil who purchased 4 acres of land, gifted 2 acres of land to the government on 31.05.2004.

¶58

The dispute arose as the extent of land sold under the registered sale deed dated 15.09.1982 reflected

¶59

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶60

12 acres, though only 10 acres 37 guntas were available for sale. It is also relevant to mention here that mutations were certified based on the registered sale deeds dated 17.05.1958, 21.04.1978, 27.03.1982 and 11.08.2003.

¶61

Respondent No.1 filed a revision petition under Section 56 of the Act alleging that his name is not reflected in the property records based on the registered sale deed. The said revision petition was allowed vide order dated 11.10.2012. In terms of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside all the entries pertaining to R.S.No.144 certified after 1958 and issued a directions to measure the property afresh by taking into account the actual enjoyment of the properties by the parties to the proceedings.

¶62

It appears that an application is filed to review the said order. Pursuant to the said application, impugned order dated 12.05.2016 is passed allowing the review petition, and a direction is issued to prepare records afresh by taking into consideration the extent in the registered

¶63

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶64

sale deeds as well as entries in the original revenue records. The orders passed in review petition as well as the order passed under Section 56 of the Act are called in question.

¶65

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Deputy Commissioner is not conferred with the jurisdiction to review his own order passed under Section 56 of the Act. It is also urged that the petition under Section 56 of the Act was barred by limitation. He further submits that once the mutations are certified pursuant to the registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners’ predecessors, the said mutations cannot be unsettled many decades after the sale in favour of the petitioners’ predecessors in title, that too on the basis of a sale deed wherein the property is apparently sold in excess of the land available.

¶66

The learned Sri Korishettear for the contesting respondents would justify the order and would contend that under Section 25 of the Act, the authority has the

¶67

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶68

power to review its own order notwithstanding the fact that there is no specific provision conferring the review jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of this court in K.R.Lakshman Vs State of Karnataka and Others in ILR 1995 KAR 1871.

¶69

The learned counsel Sri.Harsh Desai by way of reply would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union vs Management of M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mill Ltd. And Others in AIR 2005 SC 1782.

¶70

This court has considered the contentions raised at the bar.

¶71

Section 56 (1) and (3) of the Act reads as

¶72

under:

¶73

“56. Power of Revision.—(1) The Tribunal, any Revenue Officer not inferior in rank to an Assistant Commissioner, and any Survey Officer not inferior in rank to a 1 [Deputy Director of Land Records]1 or an

¶74

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶75

Assistant Settlement Officer in their respective departments, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate officer under this Act 1 [or under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908)]1 for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings of such officer.”

¶76

(3) No application for revision under this section and no power of revision on such application shall be exercised against any order in respect of which an appeal under this Chapter has been preferred and no application for revision shall be entertained unless such application is presented within a period of four months from the date of such order:

¶77

Provided that any Revenue Officer or Survey Officer referred to in sub-section (1) may exercise power under this section in respect of any order against which no appeal has been preferred under this Chapter, at any time within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised.

¶78

Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purpose of this subsection, any period during which any

¶79

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶80

proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or an

¶81

injunction by any court shall be excluded.

¶82

On perusal of the aforementioned provision, it

¶83

is apparent Section 56 confers the jurisdiction of Revision. Section 56(3) prescribes 4 months period of limitation. However, the proviso to Section 56 (3) provides that the authority can exercise the power under Section 56(1) within three years from the date of the order which is sought to be revised.

¶84

Shri Desai has also invited the attention of the Court to Section 52 of the Act. The said provision reads as under:-

¶85

“52. Application of the Limitation Act.—Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) shall mutatis mutandis apply to all appeals under this Act.”

¶86

On a reading of Section 52 of the Act, it is apparent that power conferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, i.e. the power to condone the delay if sufficient cause is made, is available only in respect of the

¶87

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶88

appeals under the Act. The power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not conferred on the authority authorized to hear the revision petition under Section 56 of the Act. The combined reading of Sections 52 and 56 of the Act would lead to a conclusion that in case the revision is barred by limitation, the authority exercising power under Section 56 of the Act can condone the delay up to three years and not beyond.

¶89

Admittedly, the orders sought to be revised are the orders/entries certified in the year 1958 and thereafter. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner could not have condoned the delay in filing the revision petition and could not have entertained the revision petition. Thus, Order at Annexure B in exercise of power under Section 56 is illegal.

¶90

That apart, the order at Annexure-A in exercise of assumed review jurisdiction is also erroneous. Admittedly, there is no provision which is confers the power to review the order passed under Section 56 of the

¶91

13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶92

Act. It is well settled principle of law that power of review is a creature of Statute. The Act has not conferred any such power.

¶93

Though Mr. Korishettar contends that under

¶94

Section 25 of the Act the Deputy Commissioner can review his own order, the contention cannot be accepted. Section 25 of the Act reads as under:

¶95

“25. Saving of inherent powers of a Revenue Court.—Nothing in this Act, shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Revenue Court.”

¶96

(emphasis supplied)

¶97

On a reading of the provision it is evident that

¶98

the inherent power to pass some orders under the Act, by the authorities under the Act is recognised. However the inherent powers recognised are qualified by the expressions ‘’as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Revenue Court.” The said

¶99

14 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶100

expression would make it abundantly clear that the revenue Court has jurisdiction to pass such orders as may be necessary in the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the revenue Court.

¶101

The impugned order at Annexure-A does not record any such circumstances to exercise power under Section 25 of the Act. Since the order at Annexure-B which is passed in exercise of power under Section 56 of the Act is passed in total disregard to the proviso to Section 56 (3) of the Act, perhaps the Deputy Commissioner had the power to review and recall the order by referring to proviso to Section 56(3) of the Act. On the other hand Deputy Commissioner has perpetuated the error by passing an order in the review petition which he could not have passed under Section 56 of the Act. Thus, the contention that order is passed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, cannot be accepted.

¶102

15 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶103

The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner resulted in unsettling the mutations which have been certified decades ago, based on the registered sale deeds which have not been questioned or cancelled.

¶104

Admittedly, petitioners’ predecessors in title had purchased the part of the property bearing Sy. No.144 much earlier to purchase of the part of erstwhile Sy. No.144, by the contesting respondents. After the first sale in the year 1958, there was a sub-division dividing the property bearing R.S.No.144 in two distinct numbers namely, R.S.No.144/1 and 144/2. Apparently, the respondent No.1 claims that the vendor of R.S.No.144/2 has sold 12 acres, when on the face of the record the vendor had only 10 acres and 37 guntas.

¶105

For the aforementioned reasons, W.P.No.103313/2017 is allowed. The orders dated 12.05.2016 and 11.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures-A and B are quashed.

¶106

16 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶107

In W.P.No.105616/2022

¶108

This court in W.P.No.103313/2017 quashed the orders dated 12.05.2016 and 11.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Pursuant to the aforementioned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner had passed the orders to enter the name of contesting respondent in the property records by reducing the extent of the land belonging to the petitioners. The Tahasildar has given effect to the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶109

The petitioners filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, who in turn had passed an order for effecting changes in the property records of Sy. No.144/1 and 144/2 of Soragavi village, Taluk Mudhol. The said order was called in question by filing R.P. No.54/2017 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has dismissed

¶110

17 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶111

the said petition subject to the result of the W.P. No.103313/2017.

¶112

Since in W.P.No103313/2017 the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under Section 56 of the Act and also the order reviewing the order under Section 56 of the Act are quashed, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is quashed.

¶113

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot in R.P.No.54/2007 vide AnnexureA and the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi vide Annexure-B are quashed. The name of the petitioner is to be restored to an extent of

¶114

01 Acre 38 guntas in R.S.No.144/1.

¶115

It is made clear that this court has not adjudicated title of the contesting parties, if any, relating to the properties in question. If there is any title dispute, pursuant to the aforementioned sale deeds, the same shall

¶116

Corrected vide court order dated 27.11.2024

¶117

Sd/(ARHJ)

¶118

18 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶119

be adjudicated in a competent civil Court without being

¶120

influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

¶121

Sd/JUDGE

¶122

MBS/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

¶123

19 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

¶125

[HANMANTH S/O LAKSHMAPPA BIRADAR PATIL VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS]

¶126

27.11.2024 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶127

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶128

ORAL ORDER ON I.A.1/2024

¶129

Sri. N. L. Batakurki, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023, has disposed of the writ petition No.105616/2022 with a direction to restore the name of the petitioner to the extent of 6 acres in Survey No.144/1.

¶130

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has sold 4 acres of land during the pendency of the case and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to have his name entered in the property records to the extent of 6 acres, however, his entitlement is only to the extent of 1 acre and 38 guntas.

¶131

Accordingly, the application in I.A.1/2024 is filed for correcting the aforementioned portion of the order dated

¶132

20 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819 WP No. 105616 of 2022 C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017

¶133

18.12.2023. The learned Government Advocate has no

¶134

objection to allow the application.

¶135

For the cause shown in the application, I.A.1/2024 is allowed. The extent of land mentioned in paragraph No.31 of the order dated 18.12.2023 is to be corrected as 1 acre

¶136

38 guntas instead of 6 acres.

¶137

Registry to carry out necessary corrections in the

¶138

order dated 18.12.2023 and issue fresh certified copy.

¶139

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶140

gab

¶141

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Hanamanth S/O Laxman Biradar Patil v. Balappa S/O Venkappa Biradar Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanamanth S/O Laxman Biradar Patil v. Balappa S/O Venkappa Biradar Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Ashok Bhimappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vinayaka Prasanna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vanaja D W/O Dr. Vinayka Prasanna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Kamalakshi W/O Sridhar Gunaga Vs the State of Karnataka

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

The Management of Vs Shri G Prakashmurthy S/O Gangadarappa