Allowed

Sri Nagahanumaiah M a v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024WP/19854/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed a mutation effecting the name of respondent No.4 in revenue records for disputed land. The Court held that Revenue Authorities lack jurisdiction to decide inheritance disputes among adopted heirs, directing restoration of the original owner's name pending a civil court determination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned mutation and consequential orders are quashed. The Tahasildar is directed to restore the name of Hanumakka in the revenue records.

Sri Nagahanumaiah M a Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38633 WP No. 19854 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.19854 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.NAGAHANUMAIAH M A S/O LATE M.S.ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT MOTAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562127

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. BALARAJ M V, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560009

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560009

¶14

THE THASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560009

¶15

SMT.MANJULA W/O GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38633 WP No. 19854 of 2024

¶17

RESIDING AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560060

¶18

ALSO AT

¶19

UKKADA VILLAGE KARAMANGALA MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 560 201

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.NISHANTH A.V, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.4; SRI.HARISHA, A.S., AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ANNEXURE-N ORDER PASSED IN RP NO.322/2023-24 DTD 12.04.2024 BY THE R-1 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the impugned mutation effected by respondent No.3 - Thasildar thereby mutating the name of respondent No.4 to the petition land. The said order was assailed by the petitioner by way of an appeal under Section 136(2) of the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38633 WP No. 19854 of 2024

¶28

Karnataka Land Revenue Act before respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner.

¶29

Respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner referring to the pendency of the Miscellaneous First Appeal in MFA No.1827/2023 relegated the parties to work out their remedies in the pending appeal before this Court. The said order is confirmed by respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner. These concurrent orders are assailed by the petitioner herein.

¶30

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

¶31

It is undisputed that the land in question was originally owned by one Hanumakka, wife of Lingaiah. Hanumakka came into possession of the said property by virtue of a grant order issued on 14th January 1957. Subsequently, this grant was confirmed through an order passed by the then Tahasildar on 2nd April 1969, in

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38633 WP No. 19854 of 2024

¶33

accordance with the Land Grant Rules of the time. As a result, Hanumakka's ownership of the land was formally established under the law.

¶34

The petitioner in this case asserts that he is the adopted son of the late Hanumakka. To support this claim, the petitioner has pointed to a Will executed by Hanumakka, which pertains to other lands. Based on this Will and his status as the alleged adopted son, the petitioner argues that he has inherited the property left behind by Hanumakka and, therefore, is entitled to have his name mutated in the revenue records in place of Hanumakka's. The petitioner’s claim rests heavily on the validity of this Will and the assertion of his adoptive relationship with the deceased.

¶35

On the other hand, respondent No.4 is also asserting a claim to the property, contending that she is the adopted daughter of the late Hanumakka. Respondent No.4 disputes the petitioner’s claim of being the adopted son and, instead, claims that she herself is the legitimate

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38633 WP No. 19854 of 2024

¶37

adopted heir of Hanumakka. This has resulted in a contest between the two parties, with both seeking to establish their respective rights over the property. Furthermore, it has been brought to the Court’s attention that the subject property has been acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), and compensation has been determined for the acquisition. However, the dispute as to who is entitled to receive the compensation remains unresolved and is currently pending before this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1827/2023.

¶38

Upon review of the records, this Court is of the

¶39

opinion that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4 is entitled to have their names mutated in the revenue records unless and until they are able to substantiate and

¶40

prove their respective relationships to Hanumakka. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 claim to be adopted children of the deceased Hanumakka, but their adoption and corresponding rights to the property have yet to be established in a properly instituted legal proceeding before

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:38633 WP No. 19854 of 2024

¶43

a competent Civil Court. The Revenue Authorities erred in entertaining an application filed by respondent No.4 without such legal substantiation. Respondent No.3, the Tahasildar, lacked the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Transfer Certificate submitted by respondent No.4, which purported to show that she was the adopted daughter of Hanumakka. In the absence of a valid legal determination by a Civil Court, respondent No.4 does not acquire any rights that would compel the Revenue Authorities to alter the mutation in the katha. The jurisdiction exercised by the Revenue Authorities under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is not intended to resolve such disputed claims of inheritance without proper adjudication.

¶44

The Court notes that neither the petitioner nor

¶45

respondent No.4 has provided records related to the acquisition of the land or the issues raised in the pending appeal before this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1827/2023. Without clarity on the nature of the

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38633 WP No. 19854 of 2024

¶47

proceedings in the appeal, this Court is unable to ascertain the precise issues at stake in the appeal or how they relate to the present dispute. The petitioner and respondent No.4 must either substantiate their claims in the pending Miscellaneous First Appeal or, alternatively, approach the appropriate Civil Court to establish their respective rights and status as heirs of the late Hanumakka. Only once their legal status is determined by a competent authority will they be entitled to any rights to the property, including the ability to claim mutation in the revenue records. Therefore, this Court is of the view that respondent No.3 erred in effecting the mutation in favor of respondent No.4 based solely on the Transfer Certificate without proper legal validation. The impugned mutation, as evidenced by Annexure-T, along with the consequential orders, cannot be sustained in law and are hereby quashed by this Court.

¶48

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38633 WP No. 19854 of 2024

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶52

(ii) The impugned mutation bearing M.R.No.H13/2020-2021 dated 01.12.2020 as per Annexure - T and the order passed in R.P No.322/2023-24 dated 12.04.2024 by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-N are hereby quashed and set-aside.

¶53

(iii) Respondent No.3 - Tahasildar is hereby directed to restore the name of Hanumakka, which shall be subject to out come of the pending Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court in MFA No.1827/2023.

¶54

(iv) All contentions are kept open.

¶55

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶56

NBM

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri Nagahanumaiah M a v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagahanumaiah M a 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

Smt Indiramma Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.J.M. Chandra Kishan Vs Sri S. Srinatha Rao

Smt Saraswathamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sundari W/O Late Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramanna Shetty (Since Deceased) Vs Vanaja Shedthi

Sri.P. Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka