Dismissed

Mrs Asha Pardeshi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024WP/17623/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue orders setting aside mutation entries over granted land at Hunasamaranahalli and sought restoration of her name in revenue records. The High Court declined interference since civil suits, including one questioning the petitioner's sale deed, were pending, and dismissed the petition confirming the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

None; impugned orders dated 27.02.2015 and 09.02.2017 confirmed, with liberty to seek revenue record modification after disposal of O.S. No.904/2019.

Mrs Asha Pardeshi Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.17623 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS. ASHA PARDESHI W/O RAMESH PARDESHI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.13, BUILDING NO. C-12, KUBERA GARDEN, NIMB ROAD, KONDHWA, PUNE - 411 048.

¶8

REP. BY HER SPECIFIC POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. B.J. AJITH KUMAR @ MUDAPPA S/O LATE B.M. JOYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.973, SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, AYAPPA BLOCK, MONORAYANAPALYA, R.T. NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶10

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶18

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 562 157

¶20

BAIYAMMA SINCE DECEASED, RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

¶21

MRS. MUNIAKKAIYAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶22

MR. JAGADEESH S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶23

MR. ANANDBABU S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶24

MRS. ASHA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶25

MR. PRASANNAKUMAR S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶26

MR. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶27

MR. CHIKKAVENKATAPPA S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶28

MRS. HANUMAKKA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶30

D/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶31

13 MRS. THIRUMALAMMA W/O LATE ANJINAPPA D/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶32

MRS. RATHNAMMA W/O MR. MUNIRAJ D/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶33

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 14 ARE R/AT KODAGALAHATTI VILLAGE, K.M. HALLI POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶34

MRS. KAMINI R. RAMNANI W/O MR. N. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.4, 3^RD FLOOR, A.G.S. PLAZA, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R10; V/O DATED 22.07.2024, R5 TO R10 ARE LR'S OF R4; SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R15; R11 TO R14 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09^TH FEBRUARY, 2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN REVISION PETITION NO.35/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED 27^TH FEBRUARY, 2015

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶40

(ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.A.(BNA) NO.109/2014-15; AND ETC.

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶43

CAV ORDER

¶44

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 09^th February, 2017 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision Petition No.36/2015-16 and order dated 27^th February, 2015 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.2 in R.A.(BNA)109/2014-15; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3-Authorities to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records pertaining to the property in question.

¶45

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and her predecessor were absolute owners of the schedule property bearing Survey No.138/2 measuring 4 acre 26 guntas (including 17 guntas of Kharab) situate at Hunasamaranahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk and the petitioner was in possession of the schedule property for a considerable period.

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶47

It is stated in the petition that the respondent-Authorities have issued Moola Tippani dated 07^th December, 1956 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.138 of Hunasamaranahalli Village, which substantiate the cultivation of the petitioner in the schedule property and accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner has become owner of the land in question in terms of the registered Sale Deeds as per Annexures 'J', 'K', 'L' and 'M'. It is also stated that the revenue records were transferred into the name of the petitioner in terms of the Sale Deeds produced at Annexures 'J', 'K', 'L' and 'M'. It is further stated in the petition that, Munishamappa and Anjanappa, who are claiming to be the grandsons of late Thalavari Jakkappa, have filed Original Suit No.679 of 2009 before the Trial Court at Devanahalli against the respondents 4 to 11 and 15, seeking relief of partition and separate possession as well as for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The said suit came to be disposed of in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Original Suit No.238 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli is pending consideration in respect of the parties and as such, the

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶49

respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, has erroneously allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 herein in R.A.(BNA)109/2014-15 and set-aside the M.R.No.3/1987-88, M.R.No.35/36/37/38/2001-02 and M.R.No.10/2005-06, by order dated 27^th February, 2015 (Annexure-B). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred Revision Petition No.36/2015-16 before the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, without considering the material on record, dismissed the Revision Petition, by order dated 09^th February, 2017 (Annexure-A) and as such, the petitioner presented this writ petition.

¶50

Heard Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Joseph Anthony, appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Hanumantharaya Lagali, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3; Sri. Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 10; and Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.15

¶51

Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, both the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶54

respondents 1 and 2-Authorities have exceeded their powers vested under Section 136 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, resulting in miscarriage of justice. He further contended that the respondents 1 and 2-Authorities are not empowered to enquire whether Sri. Bajjappa has committed fraud as alleged by the respondent No.4 and in this regard, learned Senior Counsel emphasised that Sri. Bajjappa did not have any right, title or interest in respect of the schedule property and the jurisdiction regarding title to the schedule property lies with the Civil Court to determine the civil rights of the parties and not with the Revenue Courts. He further contended that the documents produced by the petitioner namely registered Will and Sale Deeds are binding on the Revenue Authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that the respondents 1 and 2- Authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No.4 had not produced the Grant Certificate to substantiate her right over the schedule property and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2-Authorities are required to be set-aside.

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶56

Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to the Memo filed by the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.679 of 2009 (Annexure-V) and the averments made in the plaint in Original Suit No.386 of 2015 (Annexure-AA), argued that, as the Original Suit No.386 of 2015 is dismissed as per order dated 03^rd August, 2019, the finding recorded by both the respondents 1 and 2-Authorities is incorrect. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶57

Per contra, Sri. Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 10 submitted that the schedule property has been granted in favour of Thalavari Jakkappa and on his demise, his daughter namely, respondent No.4Baiyamma succeeded to the estate of her father. He further contended that, Sri. Bajjappa, brother of Thalavari Jakkappa, though having no right, executed registered Will dated 19^th December, 1984 in favour of Munishamappa and thereafter, the revenue records have been modified and the said aspect has been properly appreciated by both the respondents 1 and 2- Authorities. In this regard, learned counsel Sri. Chandrashekar Patil contended that, as Sri. Bajjappa, brother of late Thalavari Jakkappa had no right to execute the Will and as the Original

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶60

Suit No.238 of 2010 is pending consideration and the rights of the parties is yet to be determined before the competent Civil Courts, the finding recorded by both the respondents 1 and 2- Authorities is required to be confirmed. He also invited the attention of the Court to the Memo filed on 09^th August, 2024 along with the Form No.7 filed under Section 48A(1) for registering as an occupant under Section 45 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Form 10 issued by the competent Tribunal, granting occupancy rights in favour of Sri. Bajjappa and argued that the respondents have produced the relevant documents to establish right over the schedule property. He also contended that, Original Suit No.904 of 2019 is filed by Muniakkayamma W/o late Munishamappa against the respondent No.4-Baiyamma and others and same is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶61

Sri. Hanumantharaya Lagali, learned Additional

¶62

Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned orders and argued that, since civil suits are pending consideration before the competent Civil Court, no interference be called for in this writ petition.

¶63

10 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶65

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the respondents 1 and 2-Authorities, wherein, the respondent No.4-Baiyamma has challenged M.R.No.3/1987-88, M.R. No.35/36/37/38/2001-02 and M.R.No.10/2005-06 in respect of

¶66

the land bearing Survey No.138/2 measuring to an extent of 4 acre 26 guntas (including 17 guntas of Kharab) situate at Hunasamaranahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, contending that the aforementioned land belongs to her father late Thalavari Jakkappa, which was granted to her father in terms of the provisions contained under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner that the said Thalavari Jakkappa had two brothers namely Munishamappa and Bajjappa. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, the same would indicate that the respondent No.4-Baiyamma had contended that the Revenue Authorities have changed the mutation entries, without considering the grant of land made in favour of the her father. It is also forthcoming that, the said Sri. Bajjappa said to have executed Will dated 19^th December,

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶69

1984, bequeathing the land in question in favour of Sri. Munishamappa, however, nothing has been shown before the respondent-Authorities that, how the said Sri. Bajappa had acquired the right over the land in question as the land in question is granted in favour of father of the respondent No.4Baiyamma. Though the Will dated 19^th December, 1984 and Sale Deeds have been made in respect of the subject matter of the land, the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner had passed order dated 27^th February, 2015 (Annexure-B), setting aside the mutation orders referred to above. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order dated 09^th February, 2017 (Annexure-A) that the Original Suit No.238 of 2010 is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court, wherein the rights of the parties is yet to be crystalised. It is also pertinent to state that, the Original Suit No.386 of 2015 was rejected by the Trial Court, by order dated 03^rd August, 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, by accepting the application IA.No.3 filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The said aspect has not been disputed by the parties, however,

¶70

12 -

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶72

Smt. Muniakkaiyamma W/o late Munishamappa had filed Original Suit No.904 of 2019 against the respondent No.4-Smt. Baiyamma and others and in the said suit, Smt. Kamini R. Ramnani (respondent No.15), vendor of the petitioner and the petitioner-Smt. Asha Pardeshi are the parties, wherein, Smt. Muniakkaiyamma W/o Munishamappa had sought for relief of declaration that the registered Will dated 19^th December, 1984 said to have been executed by late Sri. Bajjappa in favour of Sri. Munishamappa and all further subsequent execution of Sale Deeds are not binding on Smt. Muniakkaiayamma. The said suit is pending consideration before the competent Court and in the said suit, schedule property is the subject matter in present writ petition. In that view of the matter, as the disputed question of facts are involved and the rights of the parties is yet to be crystalised in Original Suit No.904 of 2019 filed by Smt. Muniakkaiyamma W/o late Munishamappa and in Original Suit No.238 of 2010 filed by Sri. Anjinappa, S/o late Muniayappa, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 10 that, until the rights of the parties is crystalised by the competent Civil Court, no interference be called for in this writ petition. In this regard,

¶73

13 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶75

though the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi, appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of this Court in the case of JAYAMMA AND

¶76

OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2020 KAR 1449 and argued that the Revenue Authorities

¶77

have to look into the source of title of the parties, while making necessary changes in the mutation register, however the said submission cannot be accepted as two suits are pending consideration before the Civil Court and rights of the parties is to be determined. It is settled principle in law that, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to look into the decision of the respondent-Authorities unless the aggrieved person makes out a case for interference. In that view of the matter, as the land in question has been granted in favour of Thalavari Jakkappa, father of respondent No.4-Baiyamma and the rights of the parties is yet to be crystalised by the competent Civil Court, no interference be called for in this writ petition. As the Sale deed 24^th August, 2005 (Annexure-Q) executed by Smt. Kamini R. Ramanani in favour of the petitioner is itself is questioned in Original Suit No.904 of 2019, I do not find any merit in the writ

¶78

14 -

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:37275 WP No. 17623 of 2017

¶80

petition. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Authorities are required to be confirmed.

¶81

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶82

O R D E R

¶83

1. Writ Petition is dismissed;

¶84

1. Impugned orders dated 27^th February, 2015 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner and 09^th February, 2017 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner are hereby confirmed;

¶85

1. It is open for the parties to seek for modification of entries in the revenue records, after the conclusion of the suit in Original Suit No.904 of 2019 by the competent Civil Court.

¶86

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶87

ARK

Mrs Asha Pardeshi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Asha Pardeshi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S G Markandaya Vs Smt S N Gayathri

Smt Pankaja M Vs the District Commissioner

B v Srinivas Vs Sri Ujinappa

Sri Here Ammanavara Basadi Vs Sri I Narendra Ballal

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs Smt.Jayamma

Chandramma Vs Smt. Mangamma