Partly allowed

Sri.T.K. Rajagopal, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/13804/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the flat-quashing of an order restoring the petitioner's name in the revenue records, the High Court noted a comprehensive title suit is pending. The Court held that pending civil litigation precludes the Revenue Court from deciding title. It quashed the impugned order, directed the Tahasildar to reflect suit pendency, and remitted the parties to the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.04.2023 quashed; Tahasildar directed to reflect pendency of O.S. No. 966/2019 in RTC.

Sri.T.K. Rajagopal, Vs the State of Karnataka — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38186 WP No. 13804 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13804 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. T.K. RAJAGOPAL, S/O KUMARSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT THIGALARACHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 563 102.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MURTHY K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38186 WP No. 13804 of 2023

¶16

THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 563 102.

¶17

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, SARJAPURA NADA KACHERI, SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 563 102.

¶18

THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, THIGALARACHOWDENAHALLI CIRCLE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 563 102.

¶19

SRI. N. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O N. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶21

SRI. RAVINDRA @ RAVI KUMAR, S/O LATE SALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI, SECOND W/O RAVINDRA @ RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶23

KUMARI. PAVITHRA, D/O RAVINDRA @ RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶24

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, W/O LATE P. NANJUNDA REDDY,

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:38186 WP No. 13804 of 2023

¶27

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶28

RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 12 ARE R/AT THIGALARACHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 563 102.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R11; SRI. R.S. RAVI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VASANTHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R12)

¶31

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-A, ORDER DATED 21.4.2023 PASSED BY THE R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE R.P.NO.268/2013-14, IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.107 MEASURING 3 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT THIGALACHOWDADEVANAHALLI, SARJAPUAR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK ORDERING TO TRANSFER THE KHATA OF THE AFORESAID LAND IN THE NAME R-12 AND ETC.,

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:38186 WP No. 13804 of 2023

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The captioned petition is filed assailing the order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, wherein the Assistant Commissioner, while allowing the appeal, directed the Tahasildar to restore the name of the petitioner in respect of petition land.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶39

learned Senior counsel for respondent No.12 and learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 6. Perused the records.

¶40

Before this Court delves upon the claims made

¶41

by the petitioner and private respondent No.12, this Court deems it fit to take note of the family tree, which is produced at Annexure-C. The same is extracted as under:

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38186 WP No. 13804 of 2023

¶43

ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë

¶44

J£ï.£ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà (¥sÀ) ºÉA.¸Á®ªÀÄä (¥sÀ)

¶45

1£ÉÃ J£ï.£ÁUÀgÁdÄ 56 ªÀµÀð 2£ÉÃ J£ï.gÀ«PÀÄªÀiÁgï 53 ªÀµÀð

¶46

1£ÉÃ ¥ÀÆeÁ 2£ÉÃ gÉÃSÁ 3£ÉÃ J£ï.ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï 1£ÉÃ ¥À«vÀæ 2£ÉÃ ZÉÊvÁæ 27 ªÀµÀð 23 ªÀµÀð 18 ªÀµÀð 28 ªÀµÀð 26 ªÀµÀð 4. On reviewing the records, it is noticed that one

¶47

N. Narayanappa was the original owner of the petition land. The propositor, N.Narayanappa, transferred 2 guntas of land in favour of his wife and retained 3 guntas. This factual matrix is admitted by the petitioner and contesting respondent No.12. N.Narayanappa died intestate and his two sons, namely, N.Nagaraju and N.Ravikumar, inherited the property left behind by N.Narayanappa. It is also not

¶48

in dispute that in 3 guntas of land retained by N.Narayanappa, both sons are entitled for equal share. Respondent No.12 is asserting title over the petition property based on a 2010 registered sale deed executed by N.Nagaraju and his wife. The present petitioner is

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38186 WP No. 13804 of 2023

¶50

tracing his claim in terms of a compromise decree passed in suit for specific performance in O.S.No.441/2011. The petitioner contends that N.Nagaraju and N.Ravikumar and their respective children executed an agreement to sell and, in a pending suit for specific performance, acknowledged the execution of the agreement, and a compromise decree is drawn granting relief of specific performance to the petitioner in O.S.No.441/2011.

¶51

Admittedly, respondent No.12's sale deed is of the year 2010. This sale deed is secured only from N.Nagaraju, accompanied by his wife, while the petitioner is tracing his claim pursuant to a compromise decree drawn in O.S.No.441/2011. Respondent No.12 is also asserting exclusive possession based on a decree granted in an injunction suit in O.S.No.458/2014.

¶52

If these significant details are looked into, the

¶53

fact that the petitioner's name was duly reflected since 2012 and the Assistant Commissioner's order directing the

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38186 WP No. 13804 of 2023

¶55

Tahasildar to restore the petitioner's name inrespect of petition land may not warrant any interference. However, having regard to the fact that respondent No.12 has obtained the sale deed much prior to petitioner's compromise decree drawn in suit for specific performance. This Court is of the view that mutation certified, thereby entering the petitioner's name to the RTC pending consideration of a comprehensive title suit in O.S.No.966/2019, is of no consequence as on today. The petitioner's right in the petition property and also the right of respondent No.12 based on the 2012 sale deed have to

¶56

be thoroughly examined by the civil court in a pending suit. The petitioner and respondent No.12 have to establish their respective titles based on a compromise decree and a sale deed obtained by the petitioner and respondent No.12, respectively.

¶57

7. Therefore, without recording any findings on

¶58

petitioner's right pursuant to compromise decree and sale deed obtained by respondent No.12 in 2012 only from

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38186 WP No. 13804 of 2023

¶60

N.Nagaraju, this Court deems it fit to relegate both parties to substantiate their right and title over the petition land in the pending suit.

¶61

Since this Court has clarified that the change of

¶62

khatha in the petitioner's name is of no consequence in the light of pending comprehensive suit, this Court also deems it fit to direct respondent No.4/Tahasildar to reflect the pendency of suit in O.S.No.966/2019 in other rights column so that none of the parties meddle with the petition property pending consideration of the comprehensive suit.

¶63

In the light of findings recorded by this Court supra, this Court is of the view that respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner erred in allowing the revision without taking cognizance of the pendency of the suit. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to retain his name as his name was reflected in the RTC since 20122013. Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner ought to

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38186 WP No. 13804 of 2023

¶65

have taken cognizance of the pendency of the suit and was required to relegate respondent No.12 to seek appropriate reliefs in the pending suit. Therefore, the order under challenge is not sustainable. Since this Court has effectively protected respondent No.12's right, this Court is of the view that the order under challenge is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also made clear that the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the fact that his name is reflected in RTC in the pending suit. The petitioner and respondent No.12 have to independently substantiate their rights based on their respective title documents. With these observations, this Court passes the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. The writ petition is allowed in part;

¶68

ii. The impugned order dated 21.04.2023, passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-A, is hereby quashed and set aside;

¶69

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:38186 WP No. 13804 of 2023

¶70

iii. Respondent No.4/Tahasildar shall forthwith reflect the pendency of suit in O.S.No.966/2019 in the other rights column in the RTC pertaining to Sy.No.107/8;

¶71

iv. The entries in the RTC will be subject to the out come of the decision in the pending suit.

¶72

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶73

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK

Sri.T.K. Rajagopal, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.T.K. Rajagopal, 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

Azeez Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Narayana Sheety @ G a Narayana Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkataramasheety Alias K S Venkataramana Vs State of Karnataka

Sree Siddaganga Math Vs State of Karnataka

Krishnappa @ Ramakrishnappa v B Vs the State of Karnataka

Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka