Allowed

Sidlingagouda a/F Mahadevagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2023WP/103777/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Constitution Bench order allows a writ petition filed by heirs seeking mutation of land names based on a prior civil decree. The High Court directed the Tahashildar to enter the petitioners' names in revenue records without insisting on a Form 11E sketch, citing prior coordinate bench precedents.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to Respondent No. 5 to enter petitioners' names in Record of Rights and other records based on the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2016 in O.S. No. 245/1996 within two months.

Sidlingagouda a/F Mahadevagouda Patil Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 103777 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SIDLINGAGOUDA A/F MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL, R/O. MANGALWAR PET, HUBBALLI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,

¶8

1A) MAHADEVAGOUDA SIDLINGAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,

¶9

SMT. MANJULA W/O MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KILLA, BANDIWAD AGASSI, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580032.

¶10

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶11

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶12

Date: 2023.09.16 12:13:07 +0530

¶13

MANIKANTHAGOUDA S/O MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL, AGE.31 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. KILLA, BANDIWAD AGASSI, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580032.

¶14

MANORANJAN S/O MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL, AGE.24 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. KILLA, BANDIWAD AGASSI, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE.

¶15

FAKKIRAGOUDA S/O SIDLINGAGOUDA PATIL, AGE.53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE-SERVICE, R/O. ISHWAR NAGAR, OLD-HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580028.

¶16

KOTREPPAGOUDA S/O SIDLINGAGOUDA PATIL, AGE.49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE-SERVICE, R/O. MANGALWAR PETH, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580031.

¶17

MALLANAGOUDA S/O SIDLINGAGOUDA PATIL, AGE.38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE-SERVICE,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶20

R/O. MANGALWAR PETH, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580031.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DHARWAD TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580001.

¶26

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580001.

¶27

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580009.

¶28

THE TAHASHILDAR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580009.

¶29

PRAKASH A/F BASAPPA HADAGALI AT MUDENNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶30

SUPRIT S/O PRAKASH HADAGALI AT MUDENNAVAR, AGE.37 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. MANGALWAR PET, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE. 580031.

¶31

KIRAN S/O PRAKASH HADAGALI AT MUDENNAVAR, AGE.38 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. MANGALWAR PET, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE. 580031.

¶32

SUNILKUMAR W/O BHAWARLALA BHURAT, R/O. HIREPETH, OLD-HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE. 580031.

¶33

SMT. SHARADA W/O MAHENDRA SHINGI, R/O. KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE. 580023.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶36

SMT. VIJAYKUMAR MANGILALAJI JAIN, R/O. KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DISTRICT. DHARWAD, PIN CODE. 580023.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R5) (NOTICE TO R6-R11 DISPENSED WITH)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 BEARING NO. NUMBER/KRAM GANAKA/CIVILCOURT/VAHI/211/2020-2021 DATED. 02.03.2023 SAME IS PRODUCED AT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶43

i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned intimation letter issued by the Respondent No.5 bearing no Number/Kram Ganaka/Civilcourt/vahi/211/2020-2021 dated 02.03.2023 same is produced at produced at ANNEXURE-F.

¶44

ii) Issue a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction directing to the respondent No. 5 to enter the names of petitioners in record of rights and other records to the property as per the preliminary Judgment and Decree passed in O S No. 245/1996 dated: 06.09.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and

¶45

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶46

JMFC Hubballi at Ann:A and court commissioner report which is accepted by the same trial court in its FDP No.80/2016 dated 08.06.2022 at ANN: C by setting aside the impugned letter at ANN: F within the 45 days from the receipt of the order of this Hon’ble court in the interest of justice and equity and Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶47

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Rajashekhar B. Halli appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶48

The prayer of the petitioners is for registering the sale deed without insisting on 11E sketch that is required in terms of the demand made by the Government.

¶49

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶50

petitioners submits that the issue stands covered by plethora of judgments rendered by this the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. The Co-ordinate Benches has held as follows:

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶53

In WP No.16030/2021 disposed on 14.09.021

¶54

The subject matter of this writ petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.10158/2021 (KLR) between SHAKUNTHALA H.S. Vs. THE TAHSILDAR & ANOTHER, disposed off by this Court on 18.08.2021 wherein it was held that that for registration of the transactions concerning the agricultural lands, the production of 11E Sketch cannot be insisted upon where the property is fully described in the compromise decree itself; the operative portion of the said order reads as under:

¶55

“In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is favoured; a direction issues to the respondentTahsildar to make entries in terms of Compromise Decree in question without insisting upon Form 11E Sketch, within a period of two months failing which the Tahsildar shall personally pay to the petitioner Rs.2,000/- per day if delay is brooked.”

¶56

2. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER &

¶57

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶58

SECRETARY disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat the likecases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant it has to be extended to a similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶59

In the above circumstances, this writ succeeds; the fourth respondent – SubRegistrar is directed to process the matter without insisting on the production of 11E Sketch.

¶60

All contentions are kept open

¶61

No costs.”

¶62

In WP No.5703/2021 disposed on 30.11.2021

¶63

¶64

“In the above circumstances,

¶65

this Writ Petition is favoured; a

¶66

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶67

direction issues to the respondentTahsildar to make entries in terms of Compromise Decree in question without insisting upon Form 11E Sketch, within a period of two months failing which the Tahsildar shall personally pay to the petitioner Rs.2,000/- per day if delay is brooked.”

¶68

2. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed of on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat the likecases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant it has to be extended to a similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶69

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the third respondent – Sub-Registrar is directed to process the matter without insisting on the production of 11E Sketch.

¶70

All contentions are kept open.

¶71

Now, No costs.

¶72

In WP No.103193/2022 disposed on 11.10.2022

¶73

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶74

¶75

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶76

2. Petitioners filed suit for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in land bearing Sy. No.55/2A/2 measuring 2 guntas situated at Ayodhya Nagar, Hubballi. The jurisdictional civil Court passed a preliminary decree allotting 2/15^th share in the suit property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed FDP No.2/2019 for partitioning the suit property by metes and bounds and the FDP Court after accepting the report submitted by the Court Commissioner, allotted 2/15^th share in the suit property in terms of the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.223/2014. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application with the respondent No.4 to mutate his name in the revenue records to the extent of 2/15^th share in the suit property. The said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioners have not furnished 11-E sketch, against which the present petition is filed.

¶77

3. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶78

4. The petitioners were allotted 2/15^th share by the jurisdictional civil Court in O.S. No.223/2014. The respondent No.4 was under an obligation to mutate the name of the petitioners as specified under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The circular dated 14.11.2016 issued by the Director of Bhoomi and UPOR dispenses with requirement of Form 11E sketch, wherever there is a Court decree.

¶79

5. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.4 is directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records as per the

¶80

¶81

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶82

final decree drawn in FDP No.2/2019. The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶83

IN WP No.8264/2022 disposed on 27.06.2022

¶84

1. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Annexure ‘A’. By annexure ‘A’, the Upa-Tahasildar has stated that in order to mutate the revenue entries in accordance with the Court decree, a 11E Sketch would be necessary and until the 11E Sketch was produced, the application of the petitioner could not be considered.

¶85

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the final decree granted in Final Decree Proceedings No.12 of 2015, the Civil Court appointed a Court Commissioner, who was directed to inspect the spot and divide the properties, taking the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor.

¶86

3. The Commissioner’s Report, which is produced at Annexure ‘C’, records the fact that the Taluk Surveyor— Sri.Lavakumar was present and with his assistance, the property was measured and the property was thereafter divided. The Sketch, that is prepared by the Commissioner, also contains the signature of the Taluk Surveyor.

¶87

4. In my view, when the Taluk Surveyor was a party to the survey and he is also a signatory to the Sketch, the Tahasildar would not be right in insisting upon a 11E sketch.

¶88

10 -

¶89

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶90

5. It is to be stated here that a 11E Sketch would be necessary whenever an acquisition of right is to be reported under the third proviso to Section 128 (1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). The third proviso to Section 128(1) of the Act stipulates that the person reporting the acquisition of right is required to annex with the report a sketch showing the metes and bounds and other prescribed particulars of such land and the sketch should have been prepared by a licensed surveyor.

¶91

6. In the instant case, since a sketch was prepared pursuant to the final decree and was prepared with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor, who has also affixed his signature to the sketch, the requirement of the third proviso to Section 128(1) of the Act has been satisfied.

¶92

7. Hence, in view of the sketch produced by the petitioner, which contains the signature of the Taluk Surveyor, the Thasildar is directed to proceed with the mutation proceedings without insisting upon a 11E sketch. The Tahasildar shall consider the sketch, prepared by the Court Commissioner and the Taluk Surveyor, as sufficient compliance of the requirement of the third proviso to Section 128(1) of the Act, i.e., the production of a sketch annexed to the reporting an acquisition of a right.

¶93

8. It is made clear that the Tahasildar shall not insist upon a 11E sketch for the purpose of proceeding with the mutation proceedings further.

¶94

11 -

¶95

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶96

9. In view of the above, Annexure ‘A’ cannot be sustained and it is therefore quashed.

¶97

10. The Tahasildar is directed to conclude the mutation proceedings as directed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶98

11. Writ Petition No.8264 of 2022 is accordingly allowed .

¶99

In WP No.104954 of 2022 disposed on 17.11.022

¶100

“Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶101

2. Petitioner had filed a suit in FDP No.1/1983 for effecting petitioner by metes and bounds in respect of lands bearing survey Nos.76/4, 76/6, 76/8 measuring totally 3 acres. In terms of decree in FDP No.1/1983 petitioner submits that an application was submitted with the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner for mutating the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject lands. Respondent No.2 rejected the application stating that the 11E sketch in respect of the subject land is not furnished against which the present petition is filed.

¶102

3. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶103

4. Petitioner has been allotted with a share in the subject lands in the FDP No.1/1983. Respondent No.2 was under an obligation to mutate the name of the

¶104

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶105

petitioner as specified under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, since the 1circular dated 14.07.2016 issued by the director of Bhoomi and UPOR, a copy whereof is placed on record by a memo dispenses with the requirement of form 11E Sketch where there is a court decree.

¶106

5. In the above circumstances, the impugned endorsement dated 06.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 Annexure-F is hereby quashed.

¶107

6. Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in light of the FDP No.1/1983. The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶108

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶109

would, however, refute the submissions contending that the matter is pending consideration before the Apex Court.

¶110

In the light of the issue standing answered by plethora of judgments rendered hereinabove, the petition deserves to succeed and the prayer that is sought is to be granted.

¶111

For the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶112

13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10492 WP No. 103777 of 2023

¶113

ORDER

¶114

i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Mandamus issues to respondent No.5 to enter the names of the petitioners in the record of rights and other records to the property in terms of the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, in O.S. No.245/1996.

¶115

iii. The action shall be taken within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶116

Sd/JUDGE

¶117

kmv ct:bck

Sidlingagouda a/F Mahadevagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidlingagouda a/F Mahadevagouda Patil 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

Shashanka Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shashikala Krishnegowda. S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vinay Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Shekarappa Yellappa Marchappanavar Vs Lailavva @ Basava W/O. Fakeerappa Barker

Sandeep Bhatt S/O Vinaychandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sandhya Gurav Vs the Chairman