Quashed

Smt Huchamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/18336/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order dismissing the revision due to alleged delay error, remanded the matter for fresh consideration with a full hearing, and directed maintenance of status-quo in revenue entries until disposition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to Deputy Commissioner for fresh hearing; status-quo in revenue entries directed.

Smt Huchamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41813 WP No. 18336 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 18336 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. HUCHAMMA, D/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, SHETTY HALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 015. REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI.T.MANJUNATH, S/O SRI.T.TIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO 22, 15^TH MAIN, KAMMAGONDANA HALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, BENGALORE-560 015.

¶8

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:41813 WP No. 18336 of 2024

¶16

THE TAHASHILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶17

SMT. T.CHINNAMMA, MAJOR, W/O LATE C.BODIYAPPA, NO.9, JALAHALLI CROSS, 2^ND CROSS, CHOKKASANDRA, NETAJI NAGARA NEW EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 057.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. P.N.RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN R.P.NO.55/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AND THAT OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH IN R.A.(BN)321/2015-16 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2022 IN R.P.NO.55/2018 ON THE FILE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:41813 WP No. 18336 of 2024

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Sy.No.69/1 of Shettyhalli Village, Yeshwanthpura

¶27

Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk is said to be consisting of 2 acres 30 gunas of land. The dispute pertains to revenue entry in respect of 9 guntas of land in the said 2 acres 30 guntas of land. Lands in the said Sy.No.69/1 is said to be owned by several persons. Respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.35535/2009 against the respondent No.3Tahsildar and this Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the request of the petitioner to change the khatha under Section 129 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, in her name after considering all the documents placed before him. However, no action was initiated by the Tahsildar pursuant to the orders of this Court.

¶28

2. Thereafter, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal

¶29

before respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner with a request to change the mutation entry regarding 35 guntas

¶30

of land in Sy.No.69/1. In the said proceedings, petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent No.2. The Assistant

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:41813 WP No. 18336 of 2024

¶33

Commissioner came to the conclusion that there is a mutation in favor of the petitioner herein, which is erroneous. He also came to the conclusion that respondent No.4 has not produced sufficient material to change the revenue entries in respect of the land in her name. However, he allowed the said appeal and directed the Tahsildar to verify the records and change the mutation entry. The said order was passed on 22.08.2016 and on 30.12.2016 without passing any speaking order, Tahsildar has entered the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue entries in respect of 31 guntas of land.

¶34

Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.2, petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner along with the said revision, petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay. The said fact is not disputed by any of the parties. However, respondent No.1 on the ground that there is delay in filing the revision and the petitioner has not preferred an application for condonation of delay has

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41813 WP No. 18336 of 2024

¶36

dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

¶37

The petitioner contends that she is the owner of 9 guntas of land in Sy.No.69/1 and she has enough material to show the same and that she had filed application for condonation of delay before respondent No.1 and without considering any of the documents nor application, the impugned order is passed erroneously.

¶38

Per contra, respondent No.4 justifies the order passed by respondent No.1. He further submits that pursuant to the order of respondent No.2, respondent No.3 has passed the order of mutating the name of respondent No.4 and the same is not under challenge and on the said ground she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶39

Respondent No.3 has passed the order mutating the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue entries in respect of 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.69/1 on the strength of

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:41813 WP No. 18336 of 2024

¶42

order passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. He has not applied his mind independently and there is no speaking order as to why he has changed the mutation.

¶43

Respondent No.2 in the order passed by him, has come to the conclusion that mutation entry in the name of petitioner in respect of portion of the property in Sy.No.69/1 is entered erroneously, at the same time he has also concluded that respondent No.4 has failed to produce any document to show that she is the owner of

¶44

any portion of the property in the said Sy.No.69/1. However, strangely he allows the appeal and directs the Tahsildar to pass the necessary orders regarding mutating the name of respondent No.4 in revenue records. Respondent No.1 even though there was an application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner, dismisses the revision on the ground that no said application has been filed, which is also erroneous.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:41813 WP No. 18336 of 2024

¶47

Hence, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 and remand the matter back to respondent No.1 to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity to petitioner as well as respondent No.4 and such other persons interested in the property concerned and pass appropriate orders thereafter. It would also be appropriate to direct the revenue authorities to maintain status-quo in respect of the revenue entries till such decision is taken. Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) Impugned order dated 16.03.2022 passed by respondent No.1 in R.P.No.55/2018 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

¶50

ii) The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 with a direction to hear the petitioner and respondent No.4 and such other persons who

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:41813 WP No. 18336 of 2024

¶52

may be interested in the property concerned and decide the dispute in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible;

¶53

iii) Petitioner and respondent No.4 shall appear before respondent No.1 on 13.11.2024 at 3.00.p.m. without further notice;

¶54

iv) It is needless to state that parties are at liberty

¶55

to produce additional documents and plead additional facts as may be necessary before respondent No.1.

¶56

v) Till final decision is taken by respondent No.1, revenue authorities shall maintain status-quo in respect of revenue entries regarding the

¶57

property concerned;

¶58

vi) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

¶59

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶60

PGG

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Smt Huchamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Huchamma 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

Sbicap Trustee Company Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs the Designated Committee

Sbicap Trustee Company Ltd. Vs Tax Recovery Officer

Sri Srinivasa P Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashidhar H K Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr B Muralidhar Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Dcit)