Disposed

Smt Savita W/O Girimalla Gudennavar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024WP/106100/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a revenue mutation order under Article 226, alleging violation of natural justice due to lack of hearing. The court found the order valid under Section 128 of the Land Revenue Act, noting the outcome of the related civil suit would remain binding. The petition was disposed of with liberty for interim relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; liberty is reserved to file appropriate applications before the original suit proceedings.

Smt Savita W/O Girimalla Gudennavar Vs the Deputy… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15130 WP No. 106100 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 106100 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAVITA W/O. GIRIMALLA GUDENNAVAR,

¶10

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶11

SMT. SNEHA D/O. GIRIMALLA GUDENNAVAR, AGE: 21 YEARS OCC: STUDENT,

¶12

SMT. SHREYA D/O. GIRIMALLA GUDENNAVAR, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶13

MANJANNA E

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

SMT. SHREYAS S/O. GIRIMALLA GUDENNAVAR, AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1

¶16

ALL R/AT NAGANUR, TQ: MUDLAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI & SRI S.S. YALIGAR, ADVOCATES.)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶22

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15130 WP No. 106100 of 2024

¶23

THE TAHASILDAR MUDALGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

SMT. UDDAWWA W/O. MAHADEV GUDENNAVAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: NAGANUR, TQ: MUDLAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-58.

¶25

SMT. LALITA W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR KANKANWADI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: NAGANUR, TQ: MUDLAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-58.

¶26

SMT. SIDAWWA W/O. SHIVAJI YADRAVI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: NAGANUR, TQ: MUDLAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI -58.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI JAYARAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1-R3; SRI KINI N.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 TO C/R6)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, DATED 24.09.2024. PASSED IN RB/RTA/19/2024-25 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-G BEING VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, ARBITRARY, UN-REASONABLE, WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND IN VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,.

¶30

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

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15130 WP No. 106100 of 2024

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

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

¶34

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata

¶35

Bangi for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader, who is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel Sri Kini NS appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6., who is on caveat.

¶36

The present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.1, in appeal RB/ RTA/19/202425 vide Annexure-G, on the ground of it being violative of Article 14 is unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice.

¶37

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioners that the property bearing

¶39

Sy.No.209/1B+3A+3B+3C/2 measuring 10 guntas out of 1 acre 26 guntas situated at Naganur village of Mudgalgi taluka of Belgavi district is the property in dispute, which was subject matter of suit in O.S.No.445/2020. The said suit came to be filed by one Smt.Lalita, who is respondent No.5 herein, against one Bhimappa and others for partition and

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15130 WP No. 106100 of 2024

¶41

separate possession, claiming the same to be ancestral property. In the said suit, defendant No.1 therein, Sri Bhimappa filed a statement, contending that the property is an ancestral joint family property and thereafter, the suit came to be dismissed. However, on appeal filed by the petitioner herein, who was defendant No.6, the appeal came to be allowed and the matter came to be remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶42

This being the state of affairs, it is the case of the petitioner, who was the defendant No.6 before the trial Court in the original suit, that the suit property was an ancestral joint family property and that the petitioner/defendant No.6 would also get a share in the joint family property, the defendant No.1 with an intent to frustrate the suit and the right of the petitioner/defendant No.6, contrary to the averments made in the written statement to the original suit, executed a relinquishment deed dated 14.07.2023, relinquishing the property in favour of respondents No.4 to 6 herein, the plaintiffs in the suit.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15130 WP No. 106100 of 2024

¶44

Pursuant to the relinquishment deed made by defendant No.1 in the suit, mutation entries came to be effected in favour of the plaintiffs and after hospitalization of defendant No.1, he died, thereby, the relinquishment deed entered in favour of respondent No.5 i.e., the plaintiff, is now a concern and botheration to the petitioner herein.

¶45

The petitioner filed revision petition under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, challenging the mutation entry made in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents No.4, 5 and 6. The said revision petition came to be allowed and being aggrieved by the said order of the respondent No.2, respondents No.4, 5 and 6 challenged the same before respondent No.1 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by filing an appeal.

¶46

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.1, without providing an opportunity of hearing and inviting objections to the appeal, passed an order reversing the order of respondent No.2 and

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15130 WP No. 106100 of 2024

¶48

ordering to enter the names of respondents No.4, 5 and 6 in the revenue records.

¶49

8. It is the grievance of petitioner that respondent No.1 has passed the order without providing suitable opportunity of hearing and violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Hence, the petitioner seeks to allow the petition, set aside the order passed by respondent No.1 and restore the order passed by respondent No.2, subject to outcome of the suit, which is now revived pursuant to the appellate Court remanding the matter and reopening the original suit proceedings.

¶50

9. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondents No.4, 5 and 6 vehemently contends that the order passed by respondent No.1 is in accordance with law in consonance to section 128 of the Rand Revenue Act, more specifically, second proviso to section 128 of the Act. Therefore, the question of setting aside the order on the ground of not providing opportunity or on merits would not arise.

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15130 WP No. 106100 of 2024

¶52

10. On a perusal of the order sheet and the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, it is apparently seen that no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to participate and plead their case and argue the matter. So also objections were not filed before respondent No.1 even according to the impugned order. It is seen that based on the material available on record, the impugned order came to be passed by respondent No.1. Apparently it is seen from the impugned order that the Deputy Commissioner though not provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, has passed the impugned order on the basis of the registered relinquishment deed and has also mentioned in the impugned order that the outcome of the suit proceedings would be binding on the parties despite passing the impugned order on the basis of relinquishment deed.

¶53

11. Therefore, though apparently it is seen that no opportunity is given to the petitioners, it is not going to be helpful to the petitioners if the impugned order is set aside and permission is granted to the petitioners to appear before respondent No.1 to argue the matter as it is evident and

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15130 WP No. 106100 of 2024

¶55

admitted by the petitioners that there is a registered relinquishment deed executed by deceased Bhimappa in favour of respondents No.4, 5 and 6 herein, on the basis of which the mutation entries are permitted to be changed by respondent No.1. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that despite the said order, the mutation entries would be subject to the outcome of the original suit in O.S.No.445/2020. Therefore, not much of difference would arise if this matter is remanded or the impugned order is set aside.

¶56

12. On the contrary, since the appellate Court in the Regular Appeal has remanded the matter and the original suit is ordered to be decided afresh, the parties would be at liberty to agitate their matter before the original suit proceedings in O.S.No.445/2020, whereby the petitioners herein would be at liberty to take up all grounds urged herein before the original suit proceedings. They would also be at liberty to file an application, if need be, to protect their immediate right by filing necessary and suitable application for temporary injunction. So also, the same is applicable to

¶57

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15130 WP No. 106100 of 2024

¶58

the respondents. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, as the same is in consonance with second proviso to section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Nothing can be found fault with the impugned order. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i) The petition is disposed of.

¶61

ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners

¶62

to file appropriate application before the original

¶63

suit proceedings to protect their rights.

¶64

iii) It is needless to mention that the order of respondent No.1 would necessarily be

¶65

subject to outcome of the original suit proceedings.

¶66

iv) Ordered accordingly.

¶67

KGK-up to para 7. MRK-para 8 to end. CT-MCK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

¶68

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

Smt Savita W/O Girimalla Gudennavar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Savita W/O Girimalla Gudennavar v. the Deputy 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

Greenwood Internatinoal English Medium Vs State of Karnataka

State Rti and Social Activists Forum Alias Karnataka Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar

Giriraj S/O Virupakshappa Gireppanavar Vs the Authorised Officer

Uddappa S/O Laxmappa Parasannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vijaykumar B Patil Vs the Government of Karnataka

Bhushan S/O Vasant Bangodi Vs Jayashankar Kalkundrikar Multi-Purpose