In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged mutation orders asking for joint entry in Revenue Records with a relative, claiming self-acquired paternal land. The High Court held that questions regarding oral partition require adjudication by a Civil Court and disposed of the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 684 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 684 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
R/AT SHIVAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBI, CHAMARAJANGAR TALUK 571313 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.P.C.SUNITHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka
CHAMARAJANGARA DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SESHU., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT No.3 IN
WP No. 684 of 2023
M.R.NO.H55/14-15, DATED 12.03.2015 UNDER ANNEXURE-E1 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.2 IN APPEAL NO.302/2015 DATED 27.03.2020 UNDER ANNEXURE-K AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 IN CASE NO.R.A.97/2020-21 DATED 26.09.2022 UNDER ANNEXURE-N1; AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts
notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. No notice is ordered to respondent No.4.
Hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.V.Seshu for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the writ petition papers.
of the Constitution of India questioning M.R.No.H 55/2014-
15 dated 12.03.2015 (Annexure-E1); order in Appeal
WP No. 684 of 2023
No.302/2015 passed by respondent No.2 dated 27.03.2020 (Annexure-K); order dated 26.09.2022 in R.A.No.97/200021 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-N1); and to declare that land bearing Sy.No.261/1 measuring 4 acres 31 guntas situated at Yadapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagara Taluk and District and Khatha to be entered in joint names of both the petitioner and fourth respondent since the land is self-acquired property of petitioner’s father late Madegowda.
WP No. 684 of 2023
counsel inviting attention of this Court to RTCs produced at Annexure-B series would submit that since from the beginning name of Sri.Marimada S/o Javaregowda, father of the petitioner appears in the RTCs. It is the case of the petitioner that on the death of his father Sri.Madegowda, on the application of the fourth respondent, name of fourth respondent was mutated under M.R.No.H55/2014-15. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal in R.A.No.302/2015-16 before the Assistant Commissioner. The second respondent-Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27.03.2020 rejected appeal of the petitioner holding that petitioner and respondent No.4 failed to place on record the partition and further holding that land in Sy.No.129 was sold by petitioner. Petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.97/2020-21 challenging the order of the Tahasildar as well as Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 26.09.2022 dismissed appeal of the petitioner holding that petitioner could
WP No. 684 of 2023
establish his right and interest over the property in question by approaching appropriate Authority/Forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner has equal right over the property in question since the petitioner as well as father of fourth respondent are the sons of Sri.Madegowda who had purchased land bearing Sy.No.261/1 measuring 3 acres 34 guntas under registered sale deed dated 02.12.1940. It is the contention of the petitioner that no partition had taken place in the family and the RTC was standing in the name of petitioner’s father late Marimada S/o Javaregowda. Learned counsel would also submit that Revenue Inspector had recommended for entry of joint names in the RTC in respect of the property. Thus, learned counsel would submit and pray for a direction to enter joint name of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 in respect of the land in Sy.No.261/1 measuring 3 acres 34 guntas situated at Yadapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagara District.
WP No. 684 of 2023
as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to establish his right and interest over the land in question i.e., Sy.No.261/1 measuring acres 34 guntas situated at Yadapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagara District by approaching competent Civil Court.
“ 4. ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ
vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ SÁ¸Á CtÚ-vÀªÀÄä£ÁVzÀÄÝ, MAzÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÁ®ªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MAzÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ vÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÀiÁzÉÃUËqÀgÀªÀgÀÄ §zÀÄQgÀĪÁUÀ¯Éà vÀªÀÄä MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
WP No. 684 of 2023
ªÀiËTPÀªÁV «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ CtÚAiÀÄåUËqÀ¤UÉ ¸ÉÃgÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ CAzÀgÉ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ SÁ¸Á CtÚAiÀÄåUËqÀgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁzÉÃUËqÀgÀÄ G½¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¹Üw »ÃVgÀĪÁUÀ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 129 gÀ°è 03 JPÀgÉ 09 UÀÄAmÉ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 08.03.1995 gÀ°è zÉÆqÉØÃUËqÀgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ £ÀAdÄAqÉÃUËqÀgÀªÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÉà ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ ¦vÁæfðvÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ «¨sÁUÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, vÀ£Àß ¨sÁUÁA±ÀPÉÌ §AzÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÁV M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ”
A reading of the above objection would indicate that fourth respondent had taken a contention that there was oral partition among the petitioner and father of fourth respondent during lifetime of their father late Madegowda. Accordingly, petitioner’s name was mutated in respect of the properties which had fallen to his share and out of his share, he had sold land in Sy.No.129 to an extent of 3 acres 9 guntas under sale deed dated 08.03.1995.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner
would be entitled to half share and when respondent No.4
WP No. 684 of 2023
has taken up a plea that oral partition had taken place between petitioner and father of fourth respondent during lifetime of their father Sri.Madegowda, the Revenue Authorities would not be in a position to decide or arrive at a conclusion with regard to partition or otherwise. Therefore, it would be appropriate for petitioner to approach competent Civil Court to establish his right and title over the land in question and according to the petitioner if there is no partition, he could seek for partition.
With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
NC. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Authorities can decide questions fact regarding oral partition of self-acquired family property in a writ petition.
Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to challenge the mutation order and claims to joint entry in RTC.
Whether the petitioner should approach a competent Civil Court to establish his right and interest over the land in question.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Thammegowda S/o Late Madegowda
Deputy Commissioner Chamarajanagara District
Assistant Commissioner Kollegala Sub Division
The Tahasildar Kollegal
Sri. Chinnaswamy S/o Annaiahgowda
S.G. Pandit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
