Allowed

Smt.Yallavva v. Ramesh

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/107950/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ seeking to quash revenue orders regarding mutation certification. The Court held that interpretation of documents belongs to civil courts, finding a manifest error. The writ of certiorari was issued to quash the orders.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 26.03.2012 and 18.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively, were quashed.

Smt.Yallavva Vs Ramesh — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12660 WP No. 107950 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 107950 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. YALLAVVA W/O SHIVAPPA MAGARANAVAR, AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/HOUSE WORK,

¶9

SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVAPPA MAGARANAVAR, AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF AMMINABHAVI, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

RAMESH S/O SHIVAPPA MAGARANAVAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MARALETTI, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

SMT. MANJULA W/O NARAYAN PARASANNAVAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MARALETTI, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, A C COMPUND, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12660 WP No. 107950 of 2016

¶20

THE ASSSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD REVENUE TALUKA, D.C.COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. G.G.GADAG., ADVOCATE FOR R1-2 [ABSENT]; SMT. KIRTILATA.R.PATIL., HCGP FOR R3-4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Sri.R.H.Angadi., counsel for the petitioners and

¶27

Smt.Kirtilata Patil., HCGP for respondents 3 and 4 have appeared in person.

¶28

There is no representation on behalf of respondents

¶29

1 and 2, either personally or through video conferencing.

¶30

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 02.09.2024, on that day, at request on behalf of learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, the petition was ordered to be listed on 03.09.2024 and it was made clear that no further adjournment will be granted on 03.09.2024.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12660 WP No. 107950 of 2016

¶32

The petition is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.

¶33

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in PÀæ: Dgï.n.J¸ï./J.¦./285/2010-11 vide Annexure-B and the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in No.RTS/RA/CR-14/2012-13 vide Annexure-D.

¶34

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

¶35

with care.

¶36

Shivappa Magaranavar the husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner owned the land bearing Block No.568 measuring 06 Acre 35 Guntas situated at Amminabhavi Village, Dharwad Taluk. The petitioners contend that Shivappa Magaranavar released his right over the land in question in favor of his wife. Accordingly, her name was certified in the record of rights under M.R.No.20/2010-11 on

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12660 WP No. 107950 of 2016

¶38

25.08.2010. Respondents 1 and 2 questioned the said entries before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2010. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 26.03.2012 canceled

¶39

the certification of mutation No.20/2010-11. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was assailed before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 18.03.2016 dismissed the revision.

¶40

A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner reveals that the Assistant Commissioner decided the case as if he were the presiding officer of the Civil Court and concluded that the relinquishment deed requires registration. This is unsustainable. The law is well settled that the interpretation and adjudication of a document is in the domain of the Civil Court. In my view, there is a manifest error apparent on the face of proceedings, and such error is corrected by certiorari . Therefore, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside.

¶41

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in PÀæ:

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12660 WP No. 107950 of 2016

¶43

¶44

Dgï.n.J¸ï./J.¦./285/2010-11 vide Annexure-B and the order dated

¶45

18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in

¶46

No.RTS/RA/CR-14/2012-13 vide Annexure-D are quashed.

¶47

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶48

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶49

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 44

Smt.Yallavva v. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Yallavva v. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

1008, Adinath Janapada Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sharanappa Gurappa Baseodeyaya @ Baseodyar Vs Manjunatha Sharanappa Baseodeyaya @ Baseodyar

Shankar S Hebbar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Riyaz Vs the State of Karnataka

Achyutha J S/O J Balasubramanyam Vs the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Sri Mallikarjuna S Kanthi S/O Late Shivappa Kanthi Vs the State of Karnataka