Allowed

Smt Padmavati W/O Ningappa Horatti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024WP/105673/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners purchased land via registered sale deed from respondent No.5; the Tahasildar rejected mutation due to a pending specific performance suit by another respondent. The Court held a registered sale deed mandates mutation under Sections 128/129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, quashed the rejection, and directed entry of petitioners' names within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.07.2024 quashed; mandamus issued to respondent No.2 to enter petitioners' names in revenue records for R.S.No.17/1 (54 acres), Girgaon village, Chikkodi taluka, Belagavi distri

Smt Padmavati W/O Ningappa Horatti Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16601 WP No. 105673 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.105673 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PADMAVATI W/O. NINGAPPA HORATTI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOMEMAKER, R/O. MOLE VILLAGE, TQ: KAGWAD, DIST: BELAGAVI-591223.

¶10

SRI NINGAPPA S/O. PARUSHURAM HORATTI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MOLE VILLAGE, TAL: KAGWAD, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591223.

¶11

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

SRI AAMSHIDD S/O. PARUSHURAM HORATTI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MOLE VILLAGE, TAL: KAGWAD, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591223.

¶14

SRI KRISHNA S/O. BHIMRAO KADAM, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PAMALDINNI VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591307.

¶15

SRI MAYAPPA S/O. RAMU BAGI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KERUR VILLAGE, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201.

¶16

SRI NAGARAJ MAHADEV HIPPARAGI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSUR VILLAGE, TAL: RABAKAVI, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587311.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16601 WP No. 105673 of 2024

¶18

SRI SANJEEV S/O. AYAPPA ASKI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANNAL VILLAGE, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591304.

¶19

SRI TULAJAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA BADKE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MOLE VILLAGE, TAL: KAGWAD, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591223.

¶20

SRI RAJU S/O. SADASHIV INAPUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHAHPUR VILLAGE, TAL: HATAKANANGALE, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASTRA STATE – 416109.

¶21

SRI SHIVANAND S/O. TAMANNA VANDIMALI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MOLE VILLAGE, TAL: KAGWAD, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591223.

¶22

SRI SUNIL SHIVGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BORGAON VILLAGE – 591237, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶23

SRI SANJAY S/O. SHRIPAL TONE, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHAHPUR VILLAGE, TAL: HATAKANANGALE, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASTRA STATE – 416109.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE.)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶28

THE TAHASILDAR, CHIKKODI, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16601 WP No. 105673 of 2024

¶30

SRI RAVINDRA S/O. MURARRAO MUTALIKDESAI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KRISH RESIDES, SOMAWAR PETH, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI – 590001.

¶31

SRI ANIL S/O. SURESH VIBHUTE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIRGAON VILLAGE – 591201, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶32

SMT. MRUDULADEVI D/O. MURARIRAO MUTALIKDESAI, W/O. MRUDULA DILIP SAPTRASHI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GARDEN HOMES, C.D. ROAD, OPP. SHUBANGAN HOTEL, MUMBAI (W), MAHARASHTRA STATE – 400052.

¶33

SRI SURAJ S/O. BALU TAJIM, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JATRATTI VILLAGE – 591237, TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; R3-R6 – SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶37

I) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11-07-2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RTS/SR-94/2023-24 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-M;

¶38

II) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN PLACE OF THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NO.5 BY EFFECTING MUTATION WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY BEARING R.S.NO.17/1 MEASURING 54 ACRES SITUATED AT GIRAGAON VILLAGE, CHIKODI TALUK, DISTRICT BELAGAVI;

¶39

III) ANY OTHER RELIEF WHICH DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶40

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

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16601 WP No. 105673 of 2024

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

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

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondents No.1 and 2. Notice to respondents No.3 to 6 is dispensed with as the petitioners are not seeking any relief against these respondents.

¶45

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners purchased the property bearing Sy.No.17/1, to an extent of 54 acres, situated at Giragaon village in Chikodi taluk of Belagavi district, from respondent No.5. Prior to the purchase, the said property was mutated in the name of respondent No.5. On the basis of a registered sale deed dated 01.12.2023, respondent No.5 transferred her rights in favour of petitioners No.1 to 12 by receiving the valuable sale consideration amount. Pursuant to the sale deed being registered in the name of petitioners No.1 to 12, they gave a representation to respondent No.2 to

¶46

enter the names in the revenue records. But however respondents No.3, 4 and 6 objected to the said transfer of

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16601 WP No. 105673 of 2024

¶48

the names in the revenue records of petitioners No.1 to 12. The objections filed by respondent No.6 was withdrawn, no objection was filed by respondent No.5. Despite the representation having been given to change the entries in the record of rights on the basis of the sale deed, no action was taken and instead respondent No.2 without looking into the documents standing in the name of respondent No.5 the vendor of the petitioners and registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners, passed an order on 11.07.2024 by rejecting the request of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners along with the other respondents have initiated a suit in O.S.No.395/2023 which is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi for specific performance of contract initiated by respondent No.4 against respondents No.3 and 5.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned order is illegal, perverse, arbitrary as respondent No.2 has gone beyond the powers vested to him in mutating the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and passed the order which is unsustainable

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16601 WP No. 105673 of 2024

¶51

in law. She further contends that once there is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners executed by the vendor i.e., respondent No.5, it is the duty incumbent upon respondent No.2 to enter and transfer the names of the petitioners in the record of rights even though there is a suit filed by any of the parties.

¶52

In the present case it is seen that the suit is filed by respondent No.4 against respondents No.3 and 5 for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale. The same is pending adjudication. The petitioners claimed right on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by the vendor i.e., respondent No.5. In this context section 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, would be relevant. Proviso to section 128(4) of the Act contemplates that when there is a registered sale deed/decree of the Court, the Tahasildar respondent No.2 shall mutate the name and change the entries in the record of rights in favour of the person holding the registered document of sale. It may not be necessary for the petitioners to make an application to the prescribed/authorized officer. On the basis of the

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16601 WP No. 105673 of 2024

¶54

information furnished from the registrar, shall change and enter the names of the registered owner in the revenue records. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent is per-say illegal and requires to be set aside.

¶55

Learned HCGP representing the State sustains the order passed by respondent No.2 on the ground that there is civil litigation pending between the parties in which the petitioners are also parties to the said original suit which is yet to be decided.

¶56

Be that as it may, once there is a registered sale deed as contemplated under section 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, respondent No.2 shall enter the names of the registered owners by virtue of the registered sale deed in the revenue records and of course if there is any change of the said names, by any change of the order by the Civil Court, the same would apply in future for such change of entries. For the present since the petitioners are having registered sale deed with regard to the property in question, the respondent is duty bound to enter the

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16601 WP No. 105673 of 2024

¶58

names of the petitioners in the revenue records and to change the khata in the names of the petitioners. Accordingly I pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i) The petition is allowed.

¶61

ii) The impugned order dated 11.07.2024 at

¶62

Annexure-M passed by respondent No.2 is quashed.

¶63

iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.2 to enter the names of the petitioners by effecting the mutation with respect to R.S.No.17/1 measuring 54 acres situated at Girgaon village, in Chikkodi taluka of Belagavi district.

¶64

iv) The compliance shall be made within a period of

¶65

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶66

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶67

MRK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Smt Padmavati W/O Ningappa Horatti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Padmavati W/O Ningappa Horatti 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Kumar M B Vs Union of India

Hanumanthappa Vs Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank

Gavisiddappa Sanganna Karadi S/O Sri Sanganna Karadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mustaq Ahmed S/O Alha Baksh Vs Smt Mamtaz W/O Mustaq Ahmed

Basavaraj Vs Mallikarjun

Indrakumar S/O Sharanappa Sajjanar Vs Rutusha W/O Indrakumar Sajjanar