Dismissed

Rudrappa S/O Veerappa Mokashi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2024WP/100617/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a Taluka Panchayat appeal order that set aside a Gram Panchayat resolution mutating petitioner No.1's name based on an unregistered consent deed between two brothers. Following the Full Bench ruling in Jayamma, the court held mutation cannot rest on an unregistered document and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioners to a civil court to establish title.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioners given liberty to seek remedy in a competent civil court.

Rudrappa S/O Veerappa Mokashi Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7709 WP No. 100617 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 100617 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RUDRAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA MOKASHI, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, POST: NAVALGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶7

1(A) SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. PRAHLAD DESAI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MATTIKOPPA, TQ: BAILHONGAL,

¶8

DIST: BELAGAVI-591 125.

¶9

1(B) SMT. PARVATI W/O. IRANNA KALASANNAVAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. TEACHERS’ COLONY, KALASANNAVAR FARMS, KHASBHAG, BELAGAVI.

¶10

1(C) ASHOK S/O. RUDRAPPA MOKASHI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. NAVALAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 125.

¶11

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶12

Digitally signed byYASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

1(D) SMT. UMA W/O. ASHOK NAIK, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. LIG 176, MAHANTESHNAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶14

1(E) SMT. RATNA W/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 1^ST MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, NARAYANAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶15

1(F) BASAVARAJ S/O. RUDRAPPA MOKASHI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SY.NO.384, OM NAGAR, OPP. SHIVAGANGA SKATING CLUB, BELAGAVI-590 003.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7709 WP No. 100617 of 2017

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY: ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-1.

¶21

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶22

THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT MARAKATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶23

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT MARAKATTI,

¶24

TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶25

VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA MOKASHI, AGE: MAJOR (NOT KNOWN), OCC: AGRICULTURE, POST: NAVALGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶26

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

¶27

5(A) SMT. SUVARNA W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, POST: NAVALGATTI, TQ: BAIHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADV. FOR R5(A); R2 TO R4 SERVED)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BAILHONGAL, AT ANNEXURE-'E' DATED:19.12.2016.

¶31

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

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7709 WP No. 100617 of 2017

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 are full brothers. Petitioners are assailing the order passed by respondent No.2/Executive Officer wherein respondent No.2 has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5 and the resolution passed by respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat on 04.10.2004 is set aside. The said order is under challenge.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶36

learned counsel appearing for the respondents, learned HCGP and perused the material on record.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued and has questioned the authority of respondent No.2 in entertaining the appeal filed under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act after lapse of 12 years. Petitioners’ grievance is that the impugned order under challenge vide Annexure-E suffers from infirmity, as the same is passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioners allege that

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7709 WP No. 100617 of 2017

¶39

appellate authority has decided the appeal and therefore, the order being one without jurisdiction needs interference at the hands of this court.

¶40

On meticulous examination of the records, this court noticed that respondent No.5’s title over the property bearing No.42/B situated at Navalgatti village is admitted. The resolution dated 04.10.2004 is based on a consent deed alleged to have been executed by respondent No.5. Petitioner No.1 who has admitted respondent No.5’s title over the above said property, is tracing his title on the basis of a consent deed. The consent deed admittedly being an unregistered document will not vest authority with the local authorities to effect mutation based on such document.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this consent deed is between two full brothers and therefore, title can be conveyed. Therefore, it is contended that petitioners have acquired title over the property based on an unregistered consent deed.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7709 WP No. 100617 of 2017

¶43

The local authorities/revenue authorities are

¶44

under mandatory duty to effect changes whenever property is conveyed under registered document, de hors whether a varadi submitted by the transferor or transferee. While respondent No.5 during his lifetime has seriously disputed the consent deed, the delay in filing an appeal and the authority of respondent No.2 in adjudicating the matter is of no consequence. If the petitioners are assailing the title based on a disputed document alleged to have been executed by respondent No.5, the petitioners have to be relegated to establish their right based on a document styled as a consent deed, which is alleged to have been executed by respondent No.5.

¶45

In the light of the law laid down by Full Bench of this court in the case of Smt.Jayamma and Others vs

¶46

The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Others reported in ILR 2020 KAR 1449, petitioners cannot get their name

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7709 WP No. 100617 of 2017

¶48

mutated based on an unregistered document. Whether there can be such a transfer between two brothers and therefore, petitioners have acquired right based on the consent deed is a matter to be adjudicated by a competent civil court.

¶49

Admittedly, the alleged document based on which petitioner No.1 name was mutated by way of resolution passed by respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat is also not part of this record. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.5(A) has placed on record the resolution passed by respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat. Though resolution refers to a document, the said document is also not placed on record. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant any indulgence.

¶50

9. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach

¶51

the competent civil court to workout their remedy, the captioned petition stands dismissed.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

MBS Ct-mck

Rudrappa S/O Veerappa Mokashi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudrappa S/O Veerappa Mokashi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimasen Alias Bhimappa S/O Balappa Alias Balu Gurav Vs Smt. Shanta Alias Shantawwa W/O Sattyappa Gurav

Hanamant S/O Laxman Dharigoud Vs Irawwa W/O Rachappa Dharogoud

Hanmantsingh Urf Hanumantappa Shankarappa Nandihalli Urf Nandilli Vs Smt. Lalitabai Alias Yallavva W/O Laxmaaansingh Jamadar

Shri.Anilkumar S/O. Hanumantarao Gudur Vs the Town Municipal Council

Arihant Industries Vs the Principal Secretary to

President Anjuman E Islam Vs Pundalikappa Parashuram Kalal