Allowed

The Executive Officer v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2023WP/4896/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a temple challenging mutation orders that removed its name from revenue records. The court held that since the mutation was based on a partition deed without hearing the temple, the authorities erred in directing the temple to establish its title in Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the orders dated 23.03.2015 and 14.02.2013 are set aside; the Tahasildar is directed to restore the petitioner's name in revenue records.

The Executive Officer Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 4896 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI PERDUR ANANTHA PADMANABHA DEVASTANA, PERDUR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 124.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 575 001. REP/BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR, BRAHMAVAR, BRAHMAVAR POST, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213.

¶18

VARADA KALYANI, W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA KALYANI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, PRASANNA, K.E. ROAD, PERDUR VILLAGE,

¶19

UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 124.

¶20

REVATHI H RAO, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA KALYANI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, TEACHER, APT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PERDUR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 124.

¶21

RATHNAKARA KALYANI, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA KALYANI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HOTEL KIDIYUR, NEAR BUS STAND,

¶22

UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 101.

¶23

GAGANA, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA KALYANI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, HOTEL KIDIYUR, NEAR BUS STAND, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 101.

¶24

PRABHAKARA KALYANI, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA KALYANI,

¶25

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶27

VIJAYA BANK, K.S. ROAD, SASALU - 571 423, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶28

SUHASA, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA KALYANI, AGEDA BOUT 35 YEARS, VIJAYA BANK, K.S. ROAD, SASALU - 571 423, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶29

RENUKA S RAO, W/O SRINATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NANTHYARU, PERDUR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 124.

¶30

KAVITHA RAVI KIRAN, W/O RAVIKIRAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NEAR RAMA MANDIR, PERDUR VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 124.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R12; R5 TO R11 - SERVED)

¶33

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT DATED:23.03.2015 IN C.DIS.RAP-31/2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-C WHEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT, DATED:14.02.2013 IN C.DIS.RRT(2) SR 121/2010-2011 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALLOW THE W.P.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶36

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

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶39

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure-C) passed by respondent No.2 herein confirming the order dated 14.02.2013 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent No.3 herein by entering the name of the contesting respondent in the revenue records.

¶40

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the land bearing survey No.155/19, measuring 9.50 Cents, which belongs to the petitioner -

¶41

temple and originally temple is in possession of the land in question. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the vendors of the contesting respondents herein have entered into a partition during the year 2005 and pursuant to the same, the revenue records have been challenged in the

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶43

name of the vendors of the contesting respondents herein by removing the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records as per Annexure-A to the writ petition. Thereafter, the said aspect has been questioned before respondent No.3 herein by the petitioner herein and respondent No.3 herein by order dated 14.12.2013 (Annexure-B), dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. Failing aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a Revision Petition before respondent No.2 herein and respondent No.2 herein by order dated 23.03.2015(Annexure-C) dismissed the Revision Petition by directing the petitioner herein to approach the Civil Court to establish its rights in respect of the land in question.

¶44

Being aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.2 and 3, the petitioner-temple has preferred this writ petition.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶47

Heard Sri Krishnamoorty D, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Nagaraja Hegde, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.12 and Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶48

Sri Krishnamoorty D, the learned counsel

¶49

appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question and the revenue

¶50

records are stands in the name of the petitioner herein. However, the revenue authorities, on mistaken fact by M.R.No.263/2004-05 (Annexure-A) entered the names of the One Prabhakara Kalyani and Ramakrishna Kalyani in the revenue records without issuing notice to the petitioner herein and the same was questioned before respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, without considering the factual aspects on record that the petitioner herein is the owner in possession of the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶53

land in question, have passed an impugned order which

¶54

requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.

¶55

It is further contended by Sri Krishnamoorty D,

¶56

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that both the authorities have wrongly arrived at the conclusion to direct the petitioner to establish its right before the Civil Court, despite the fact that the interference made by the respondent authorities by entering the names of the vendors of the contesting respondents herein itself is based on the erroneous assumption that the respondent authorities have concluded based on the partition effected among the family members of the vendors of the contesting respondents herein without considering the title to the property in question. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶57

Per-contra , Sri Nagaraja Hegde, the learned

¶58

counsel appearing for respondent No.12 sought to justify the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶59

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶60

and contended that respondent No.12 has purchased the land in question as per the Sale Deed dated 18.07.2008 and 23.08.2010 and therefore, as the mutation entry has been made pursuant to the partition effected amongst the family members of the vendors of respondent No.12 and therefore, he sought to justify the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 and 3 herein.

¶61

Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, the learned AGA submitted that the petitioner has to establish its right over the land in question and until the establishment of the right over the property in question by the petitioner herein, no interference is called for in respect of the land in question.

¶62

In light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that even according to the revenue authorities, the land in question to an extent of 0.09.50.00 Cents in survey No.155/19 and to an extent

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶65

of 0.03.50.00 Cents in survey No.155/19C as per

¶66

Annexure-A belongs to the petitioner temple.

¶67

The Revenue Inspector, while changing the

¶68

mutation entry in favour of the vendors of the contesting respondents herein has stated in the mutation register, which reads as under:-

¶69

"ªÀÄÄåmÉÃ±À£ï DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ «ªÀgÀ: £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ÀÄ eÁjAiÀiÁVzÉ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ¬ÄgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è «¨sÁUÀ¥ÀvÀæ zÀ.£ÀA 1276/04-05 ¢.3-1-05 gÀAvÉ SÁvÉ 566 gÀ°è ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgÀ PÀ,ÁåtÂ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ SÁvÉ 2693gÀ°è gÁªÀÄPÀÈµÀÚ PÀ,ÁåtÂ, gÀvÁßPÀgÀ PÀ,ÁåtÂ ªÉÄÊ.UÀUÀ£ï, ªÉÄÊ.¸ÀÄºÁ¸ïgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ°è zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉÃ²¹ ªÀÄÄåmÉÃ±À£ï zÀÈrÃPÀj¹zÉ.

¶70

On careful examination of the entry made by the Revenue Officer in the mutation entry in M.R.No.263/2004-05 (Annexure-A) is based on the

¶71

partition deed No.1276/2004-05. In that view of the matter, the mutation has been effected based on the partition deed as mentioned in Annexure-A. On careful examination of the said Annexure-A would indicate that

¶72

the petitioner has not been heard in the matter. However, being aggrieved by the change of entry the petitioner

¶73

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶74

temple has questioned the same before respondent No.3 herein as per Annexure-B.

¶75

The contesting respondents herein have entered appearance before respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 herein in the order dated 14.02.2013 (Annexure-b) observed as follows:-

¶76

"F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«AiÀÄ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£ÉÃ ¥ÁågÁUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C®èUÉ¼ÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ J.¦. PÀ,ÁåtÂ EªÀgÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA§æ 155/19 gÀ°è 0.0350 JPÉæ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀ zÉÃªÀ¸ÁÜ£À ªÀiÁrzÀ J®A£À°è CwÃ ºÉaÑ£À ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ £É®¨sÁrUÉ £É,ÉAiÀÄ°è 1955 gÀ°è ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ M¥ÀÄàvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«AiÀÄÄ 3£ÉÃ ¥ÁågÁªÀ£ÀÄß F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ M¥ÀÄàªÀÅ¢®è. zÉÃªÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ J®A£ÀAvÉ J.¦. PÀ,ÁåtÂ EªÀgÀÄ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÁÝVzÉ.

¶77

On careful examination of the contentions raised

¶78

by the contending respondents herein would indicate that, the vendors of respondent No.12 have taken the possession of the land in question in the auction for lease from the temple in question.

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶81

In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, as the contesting respondents herein have taken such a plea before respondent No.3 herein, respondent No.4 herein has erroneously arrived at the conclusion to direct the petitioner herein to establish its rights over the property in question. In that view of the matter, the change of entry made by the Revenue Officer at Annexure-A is contrary to Section 127 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and therefore, respondent No.4 herein is directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records relating to the land in question. However, it is open for the contesting respondents herein to establish their right over the property in question before the Civil Court in a manner known to law.

¶82

12 -

¶83

NC: 2023:KHC:38858 WP No. 4896 of 2017

¶84

In the result, the writ petition is allowed . Orders

¶85

dated 23.03.2015 and 14.02.2013 are hereby set aside.

¶86

SD/JUDGE

¶87

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT:SNN

The Executive Officer v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Officer v. 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

Sri Kumara Raja S Vs Thasildar

Sri. Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhandarkar'S Arts and Science College Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Sh K B Munegowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt.Vanajakshi R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Kaverappa Vs the State of Karnataka