Allowed

Sri. Shekharappa Kalakappa Shirigiri S/O Kalakappa Shirigiri v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2024WP/104684/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner obtained a registered sale deed via court execution and sought mutation of his name in revenue records. The court held authorities are duty bound to record a registered owner's name even absent an application, and issued mandamus to consider his representations within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to consider representations dated 26.04.2014 and 15.03.2024 considering sale deed dated 03.08.2010 and pass suitable orders within four weeks.

Sri. Shekharappa Kalakappa Shirigiri S/O Kalakappa… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17449 WP No. 104684 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 104684 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. SHEKHARAPPA KALAKAPPA SHIRIGIRI, S/O. KALAKAPPA SHIRIGIRI,

¶11

AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O. GADAG, TAL: AND DIST: GADAG-582103.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG, TAL: AND DIST: GADAG-582103.

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR, SHIRAHATTI, TAL: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582103.

¶17

V N BADIGER

¶18

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶19

SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. FAKIRAPPA METI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHENAHALLI, TAL: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582103.

¶20

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; R3-NOTIC DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 26/04/2014 AND 15/03/2024 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E AND F RESPECTIVELY.

¶23

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

¶24

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17449 WP No. 104684 of 2024

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

¶29

dispensation of notice to respondent No.3 as no relief is sought against him. Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed.

¶30

The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent No.3 in O.S.No.13/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Gadag in respect of suit property bearing R.S.No.105/1 new No.105/2B measuring 3 acres 16 guntas situated at Machenahalli village in Shirahatti taluk and out of this eastern portion measuring 3 acres 16 guntas, learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the petitioner directing the respondent No.3 to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the said suit property by accepting balance amount of Rs.59,000/- from the petitioner and deliver possession of the suit property within a period of 3 months. Since, respondent No.3 failed to execute the registered sale

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17449 WP No. 104684 of 2024

¶32

deed in favour of the petitioner, he filed Execution Petition No.28/2008. In the said execution proceedings, a Court Commissioner was appointed and sale deed in respect of suit property came to be executed in favour of the petitioner on 03.08.2010 by the Court Commissioner. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once a registered sale deed is entered in the registrar office, the same would have to be promptly recorded in the revenue records by the prescribed authority and concerned officer as contemplated under section 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rule 63 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Despite the representation made, non consideration of the representation to mutate the name of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. Hence the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to mutate his name in the revenue records.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17449 WP No. 104684 of 2024

¶35

Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents submits that, the representation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law if reasonable time is granted, if otherwise the petitioner is entitled.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State, it is not in dispute that the registered sale deed is in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, as contemplated under Section 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rule 63 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, the duty is cast upon the authorities to record the name of the person in whose name a registered document exists before the jurisdiction authorities. The prescribed officer is duty bound to enter the name of the registered owner even if any application is not made as the same is exempted. Therefore, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. Petition is allowed.

¶39

ii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17449 WP No. 104684 of 2024

¶41

representation dated 26.04.2014 and

¶42

15.03.2024 taking into consideration the sale

¶43

deed dated 03.08.2010 executed on 04.08.2010 and pass suitable orders within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶44

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶45

KGK

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri. Shekharappa Kalakappa Shirigiri S/O Kalakappa Shirigiri v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shekharappa Kalakappa Shirigiri S/O Kalakappa Shirigiri v. the Assistant 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

Shattu S/O Bhujang Sambrekar Vs State of Karnataka

Vithal S/O Gurunathsa Baddi Vs the State of Karnataka

S. M. Veerabhadraiah S/O Veeraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa Vitthappa Desai Since Deceased by His Lrssmt. Shakuntala W/O Vitthapap Desai Vs the State of Karnataka

Divya Devendra Kyalakond, Vs the State of Karnataka

B. B. Fatima Vs the State of Karnataka