Dismissed

Smt.Anasuya Basavant Katti v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2023WP/114495/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Deputy Commissioner's order that set aside the Assistant Commissioner's finding of joint family property. The Court held the Assistant Commissioner lacked material to rebut the presumption of individual ownership and remanded the issue of property rights to the Civil Court. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Substantive question of property rights to be decided by the competent Civil Court in a suit.

Smt.Anasuya Basavant Katti Vs Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14278 WP No. 114495 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 114495 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. ANASUYA BASAVANT KATTI, AGE : 59 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : RON CHAWL, YELLAPUR ROAD, MUNDGOD TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA, DISTRICT-581349.

¶10

SHRI. RAVIRAJ BASAVANT KATTI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RON CHAWL, YELLAPUR ROAD, MUNDGOD TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA, DISTRICT-581349.

¶11

SMT. RAJESHWARI PRAKASH MALLIGWAD AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RON CHAWL, YELLAPUR ROAD, MUNDGOD TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT-581349.

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2023.12.12 11:16:00 +0530

¶13

SMT. SHARADA BASAVANT KATTI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RON CHAWL, YELLAPUR ROAD, MUNDGOD TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT-581349.

¶14

SMT. JYOTI SATU BANSODE, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RON CHAWL, YELLAPUR ROAD, MUNDGOD TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA, DISTRICT-581349.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SMT. SHIVALEELA ARAHUNASI AND SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)

¶17

AND:

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14278 WP No. 114495 of 2019

¶21

UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR-581301.

¶22

TAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, MUNDGOD, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR-581301.

¶23

SMT.SHANTAVVA W/O. CHANNAPPA KATTI AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. NANDIKATTA VILAGE, MUDGDOD TALUK, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581349.

¶24

SHRI.CHANDRAKANT CHANNAPPA KATTI AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE WORK, R/O. NANDIKATTA VILAGE, MUDGDOD TALUK DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581349.

¶25

SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O. DHARMARAJ BANASODE AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. EKATA NAGAR, KOLAR ROAD, TALUK BIJAUR-08352.

¶26

SMT. SANGEETA RAJU KAMBALE AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O. RJAU KAMBALE, R/O. VASUNDHARA BHAVAN, O NG C, 7TH FLOOR, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051.

¶27

SHRI. SURESH CHANNAPPA KATTI, AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NANDIKATTA VILLAGE, MUDGDOD TALUK, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581349.

¶28

SMT. KALAVATI MOHN BANASODE, AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. M. R. BANASODE, CIVIL COURT, BILAGAI, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587116.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER (WHICH IS PASSED BY THE COURT OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR IN RB/RTR/CR-4/2018-19 DATED 19.08.2019 WHCIH ARE PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D).

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14278 WP No. 114495 of 2019

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioners before this Court are questioning the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act, 1964’). In terms of the said order dated 19.08.2019, the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the revision petition and consequently has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and in turn has allowed the appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act, 1964.

¶36

The other facts necessary for adjudication of the petition can be summarized as under:

¶37

Properties bearing Sy.Nos.11 and 14 of

¶38

Tammyankoppa village of Mundagod Taluka were granted to one Sri Channappa Bhimappa Katti @ Harijan. The said grant is said to have been made in the year 1969 and Sanad Kabulayat pursuant to the grant is said to have been executed on 30.05.1995 and based on the Kabulayat M.E.No.114 is certified, in the name of Sri Channappa

¶39

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14278 WP No. 114495 of 2019

¶40

Bhimappa Harijan. His brother Sri Basavantappa Bhimappa Chavadi @ Harijan filed appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner, Sirsi claiming that the grant is a joint family grant. When the appeal was filed, the original grantee had expired, hence his legal representatives were parties to the said proceedings. The Assistant Commissioner has accepted the plea of the appellants before him and concluded that the properties in question are the joint family properties as the grant is made in favour of the joint family comprising of grantee Sri Channappa Bhimappa Katti @ Harijan and his brother.

¶41

Aggrieved by the order of Assistant Commissioner, Sirsi, a revision petition is filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of the impugned order has concluded that grant is not made in favour of the joint family as held by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has taken a view that the grant is made in favour of an individual and not in favour of the joint

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14278 WP No. 114495 of 2019

¶43

family. Hence, he has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the present petition is filed.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Sri Channappa Bhimappa Katti @ Harijan in whose favour the grant was made and who in turn executed the Kabulayat in the year 1995 was the elder member of the family and grant was made on behalf of the joint family compromising his brother. It is also her contention that the members of the joint family were cultivating the land and merely because of Kabulayat was executed by Sri Channappa Bhimappa Katti @ Harijan, merely the grant order is made in his favour, it cannot be concluded that the grant is made exclusively in respect of Sri Channappa Bhimappa Katti @ Harijan. She would also contend that the Assistant Commissioner is justified in concluding that the grant is a joint family grant.

¶45

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar.

¶46

Under the Hindu Law, there is a presumption that the property standing in the name of an individual is the

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14278 WP No. 114495 of 2019

¶48

self acquired property of the individual. This presumption is also available in respect of the Government grant. However, the said presumption is not conclusive. The said presumption is rebuttable. Before the Assistant Commissioner, no material is placed to rebut the said presumption in favour of the grantee. This being the position, the Assistant Commissioner was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the grant is a joint family grant. The Assistant Commissioner has not assigned any reason as to why he concluded that the grant is the joint family grant. Under these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner is justified in allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶49

However, it is to be noticed that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner or order passed by the Deputy Commissioner do not conclusively decide the rights of the parties over the properties in dispute. Whether the properties are granted individually and exclusively to Sri Channappa Bhimappa Katti @ Harijan or it was granted for

¶50

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14278 WP No. 114495 of 2019

¶51

the benefit of the joint family of Sri Bimappa Katti @ Harijan and his brother is the matter to be decided by the competent Civil Court.

¶52

In case, any suit is filed by the petitioners in this regard, or in case any suit is pending before the Court filed by the petitioners, the question whether the properties are the joint family properties or whether the properties were granted individually in the name of Sri Channappa Bhimappa Katti @ Harijan is to be decided by the competent Civil Court after considering the material evidence. If such a suit is filed before the Civil Court, the Civil Court shall decide the claim of the parties without being influenced by the observations made by the Assistant Commissioner in the order dated 28.02.2006 as well as observations made by the Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 19.08.2019.

¶53

It is further made clear that dismissal of the writ petition should not be construed as an observation against the petitioners relating to the claim over the properties.

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14278 WP No. 114495 of 2019

¶55

With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶56

All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be

¶57

decided in an appropriate suit.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

KGK,CKK/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Smt.Anasuya Basavant Katti v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Anasuya Basavant Katti v. 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

Shri. Jetalal S/O Chandu Rathod Vs the Managing Director

B.T.Bandiwaddar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nelson Mathew Rodrigues Vs Chairman and Managing Director

Iramma D/O. Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Savitri P Madav @ Smt. Savitri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shrikant S/O. Devu Huvannavar Vs the State of Karnataka