Disposed

Smt. Yallawwa W/O. Bharmappa Madar v. Shri. Chandrappa Kalsappa Holer

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2024WP/101000/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged Deputy Commissioner's order upholding rejection of their delayed appeal against revenue-record mutation of respondent No.1's name based on an oral partition reduced to writing. Court held unregistered partition deed did not invalidate the mutation and directed petitioners to agitate claims in civil court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Yallawwa W/O. Bharmappa Madar Vs Shri. Chandrappa… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC-D:517 WP No. 101000 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 101000 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. YALLAWWA W/O. BHARMAPPA MADAR AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VANNUR TQ. BAILHONGAL DIST. BEALGAVI-590010

¶7

SMT LAXMAVVA W/O SOMAPPA MADAR AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VANNUR TQ. BAILHONGAL DIST. BEALGAVI-590010

¶8

SMT BALAVVA W/O SADEPPA MADAR AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ANIGOL TQ. BAILHONGAL DIST. BEALGAVI-590010

¶9

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶10

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL Date: 2024.02.24 12:22:58 +0530

¶11

SMT DURGAWWA W/O YALLAPPA MADAR AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ANIGOL TQ. BAILHONGAL DIST. BEALGAVI-590010

¶12

SMT CHANAAVVA W/O BASAPA MADAR AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VANNUR TQ. BAILHONGAL DIST. BEALGAVI-590010 (BY SRI.SHARAD M.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC-D:517 WP No. 101000 of 2022

¶16

AND:

¶17

SHRI. CHANDRAPPA KALSAPPA HOLER AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MALAGALI TQ. SAUNDATTI DIST. BEALGAVI

¶18

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR MURGOD TAL BAILHONGAL DIST. BELAGAVI

¶19

THE TAHASHILDAR SOUNDATTI DIST. BELAGAVI

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL DIST. BELAGAVI

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DC COMPOUND-590010

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2 TO R5; SRI. CHETAN.T.LIMIBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR FR1)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶25

A) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BE ISSUED AND THEREBY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BEARING NO.RB/RT A/79/2020-21 AS PER ANNEXURE-G BELGAVI DTD 6/1/2022 BE KINDLY BE QUASHED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:517 WP No. 101000 of 2022

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The name of respondent No.1 was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land bearing R.S.No.60B measuring 3 acres 24 guntas situated at Malagali village, Soundatti Taluka, in pursuance of a deed of partition entered into between respondent No.1, Bharmappa, Demappa sons Yallappa Holer. The said partition deed is dated 16.11.1993, and the name and certification of entry in favour of the petition is dated 16.11.1993.

¶30

The petitioners claiming to be the legal representatives of deceased Bharmappa filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short hereinafter to as ‘the Act’) before respondent No.4 on 29.10.2020. Respondent No.4 dismissed the appeal stating that there was an inordinate delay of 22 years in filing the appeal without offering plausible explanation, and the same was confirmed by respondent No.5/Deputy Commissioner in the revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Act. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the partition deed is not registered as prescribed under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, the mutation of the name of respondent No.1 on the bases of unregistered documents is contrary to Section 28 of the Act. He further submits that the father of respondent No.2 had filed form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the same

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC-D:517 WP No. 101000 of 2022

¶34

subject land before the Land Tribunal, and the same came to be rejected and he is totally stranger to the family, is not entitled for any right over the subject land.

¶35

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State submits that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 22 years without offering plausible explanation, and the revenue authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners. He further submits that the registered partition deed does not require registration since the oral partition was reduced into writing, and therefore, respondent No.3-Tahasildar has rightly certified the mutation in favour of respondent No.1.

¶36

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

On perusal of the “Apsat Watani Patra”, respondent No.1 who is stated to be grandson had entered into an oral partition and in the oral partition, the subject land was allotted to the share of respondent No.1. Based on the said partition, the name of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was mutated in the revenue records. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that in the absence of registration of the partition deed as prescribed under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Tahasildar concerned has committed an error in certifying the name of respondent No.1. Contrary to Section 128 of the Act is not acceptable.

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC-D:517 WP No. 101000 of 2022

¶39

¶40

The petitioners have produced the copy of the order dated 23.03.1976 passed by the Land Tribunal, Soundatti, by which the application alleged to have been filed by father of respondent No.1 for grant of occupancy rights has been rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner was cultivating the subject land on the basis of agreement of sale and not as a tenant. This document does not establish that respondent No.1 is a stranger to the family, and whether respondent No.1 is a stranger to the family or not is a matter which requires to be agitated before the Jurisdictional Civil Court. The petitioners instead of agitating the claim before the Revenue Authority challenged the mutation entry in favour of respondent No.1, and the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Jurisdictional Civil Court for agitating their rights in respect of the subject land. If the petitioners files the suit, the Trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶41

All contentions are kept open.

¶42

SSP

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 67

Smt. Yallawwa W/O. Bharmappa Madar v. Shri. Chandrappa Kalsappa Holer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Yallawwa W/O. Bharmappa Madar v. Shri. Chandrappa Kalsappa Holer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sarojini W/O Balappa Patil, Vs United Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Kolli Mallikarjun S/O Kolli Nageshwar Rao, Vs the State of Karnataka

Kolli Mallikarjun S/O Kolli Nageshwar Rao, Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Raj Fabricators and Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Lalita W/O Halappa Katagi Vs Sub Registrar Mundgod

Shri Dundappa Laxman Gudami Vs the Deputy Commissioner