A dispute between family members of late Napanda P.Palangappa over revenue entries for ancestral land. With a partition suit pending covering the same property, the court set aside both appellate and revision orders directing revenue authorities to retain the deceased owner's name in records subject to suit outcome.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 13240 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJU BYRAL R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:44416 WP No. 13240 of 2024
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R3, R5; SRI. NISHANTH S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/11/2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY IN NO.RP.20/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY DATED 29/09/2022 IN Re Aa/85/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXUER-B BY ISSUING WRIT OR CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
the family members of one late Napanda P.Palangappa. The revenue entries regarding the property which is the subject matter of writ petition stood in the name of late Napanda P.Palangappa. Respondent No.4, on the ground that there has been an unregistered partition in the family and property which is the subject matter of the writ petition came to his share, made an application to
respondent No.3 for change of revenue entries in his name. The same was rejected. Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') to respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. In the said proceedings, petitioner was not arrayed as party. Appeal filed by respondent No.4 was allowed and the revenue entries were ordered to be mutated in the name of respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein preferred a revision under Section 136(3) of the Act before respondent No.1. He has upheld the orders passed by respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
respect of all the property belonging to Napanda family including late Napanda P.Palangappa and in the said suit, petitioner as well as respondent no.4 are made parties to proceedings and the property which is the subject matter of present writ petition is also subject matter of the said suit and the trial Court has passed an interim order restraining the parties concerned not to alienate or change revenue records of rights or khatha or create any charge over the property till disposal of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:44416 WP No. 13240 of 2024
ORDER
of .
SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
PGG
1 issue framed by the court
Whether revenue mutation orders favouring respondent No.4 should stand given pending partition suit over family property?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri N.K.Erappa
The Deputy Commissioner Madikeri, Kodagu District
The Assistant Commissioner, Madikere Sub Division
Tahasildar, Mini Vidhana Soudha, Madikere Taluk
Sri N.S.Kalappa
Revenue Inspector, Madikeri Hobli & Taluk
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
