Disposed

Sri.P.P.Mukunda Das v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023WP/33070/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal to mutate the petitioner's name in revenue records. The court held that since the original grant to the previous owners was cancelled and that challenge is pending, no right accrues to the purchaser.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with no order passed. The petitioner is advised to seek mutation upon the outcome of the pending revision before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

Sri.P.P.Mukunda Das Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 33070 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 33070 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.P.P.MUKUNDA DAS S/O PADMANABHAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, ”AISHWARYA”, KOLATHUR, KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER ARUNADAS, S/O P P MUKUNDA DAS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O RATTADI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI N B PATIL, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576101.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPUR SUB-DIVISION KUNDAPUR, UDUPI DISTRICT-576201.

¶15

THE TAHSILDHAR KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576201.

¶16

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KUNDAPURA HOBLI, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576201.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI V SESHU, HCGP)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 33070 of 2016

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.06.2015 OF R-1 AT ANNEXURE-AB; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2013 PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-AA; QUASH THE MR NO.36/2011-12 DATED 14.11.2011 PASSED BY R-4 AT ANNEXURE-V AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard learned counsel Sri.N.B.Patil for petitioner and

¶25

learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.V.Seshu for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased lands in question i.e., land measuring 3 acres 25 cents in Sy.No.145/2 and land measuring 4 acres 30 cents in Sy.No.145/3 of Rattadi village, Kundapura Taluk under registered sale deed dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure-R) from one Smt.Saramma Cherian.

¶27

The said Saramma Cherian purchased the lands in question under registered sale deed dated 14.07.2010 (Annexures-L and M) from one Sri.Narayana Shetty and Sri.K.T.Peter who are the original grantees of lands in question. According to

¶28

¶29

WP No. 33070 of 2016

¶30

the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Narayana Shetty and Sri.K.T.Peter were granted lands in question under Grant Order dated 31.05.1972. It is submitted that Saguvali Chits were issued to the grantees on 30.10.1980 and thereafter, in terms of Annexures-E and F, names of the grantees were mutated in RTC. On obtaining permission from the State Government dated 29.06.2010 in terms of Annexures-J and K, the grantees sold the properties to the above stated Smt.Saramma Cherian from whom, the petitioner purchased the lands.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, on purchase of lands in question, the petitioner submitted an application for mutation and entry of his name in the RTC. The said request was rejected under Annexure-V dated 14.11.2011 against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura in RRT (1) SR 53/2012-13. The Assistant Commissioner rejected petitioner’s appeal and the said rejection was the subject matter of revision petition before the Deputy

¶32

¶33

WP No. 33070 of 2016

¶34

Commissioner in CDS RAP 56/2014-15 and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 15.06.2015 confirmed the order of Assistant Commissioner on the ground that grant to the original grantees i.e., Sri.Narayana Shetty and Sri.K.T.Peter were cancelled under Assistant Commissioner’s order bearing No.LND CR 517/1984-85 dated 14.11.1984.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.N.B.Patil would submit that the petitioner challenged the said cancellation of grant and the said proceedings is pending in Revision No.44/2022 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel would submit that action of the respondents in rejecting mutation of petitioner’s name in RTC relating to the lands in question is wholly unreasonable and unfair. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent-Tahsildar ought to have mutated petitioner’s name based on the registered sale deed produced by the petitioner in terms of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short “1964 Act”). Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 33070 of 2016

¶38

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶39

would submit that as the grant itself is cancelled, the respondent-authorities are justified in refusing to mutate the name of the petitioner in revenue records relating to the lands in question. Unless cancellation of grant is set aside by the Competent Authority or the Court, the petitioner would not be entitled for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that there is no justification or reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities at this stage.

¶41

Admittedly, grants in favour of Sri.Narayana Shetty and Sri.K.T.Peter under Grant Order dated 31.05.1972 is canceled under proceedings bearing No.L.N.D. CR 517/8485 dated 14.11.1984. Subsequent purchase of the lands by

¶42

¶43

WP No. 33070 of 2016

¶44

the petitioner would not confer any right on the petitioner, unless, the cancellation is set aside by the Competent Court or authority. As on the date of purchase of land by petitioner and his vendor, in the year 2010 and 2011 respectively, the original grantees had no right, title and interest in the property since by that time grant had been cancelled. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of cancellation is challenged and is pending in Revision No.44/2022 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. It is open for the petitioner to seek for mutation of his name in the revenue records relating to the lands in question, depending upon the outcome of the Revision No.44/2022, pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

¶45

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Sri.P.P.Mukunda Das v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.P.P.Mukunda Das 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

B Fouress Private Limited Vs Ishan International Private Limited

Venkateshappa @ Venkatappa Bovi Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Mysore Pinnacle Acres and Ventures Vs M/s. Sjk Builders and Developers (R)

Sri. Hemananda. M Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shirish Mahavir Patil Vs Assistant Commissioner

Sri. Veerabhadra Vs the State of Karnataka