Allowed

Sushilabai and Ors. v. Gourish and Ors.

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2024WP/200677/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Calaburgi Bench, allowed a writ petition to quash an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The order was set aside because it was issued without condoning the delay in filing the revision petition, despite the existence of a civil suit regarding revenue mutation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in Case No.RTS/REV/50/2022-2023 dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh disposal.

Sushilabai and Ors. Vs Gourish and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3199 WP No. 200677 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.200677/2024(KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUSHILABAI, W/O MAHANTESH KUBACHI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF HANAGANDI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI DIST: BAGALKOT

¶10

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. YALLAWWA, W/O ASHOK CHOORI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF MANAGULI, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI DIST: VIJAYAPURA

¶12

SMT. ARANAWWA W/O SURESH TIKOTA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT

¶13

SUJATA D/O SITAWWA CHOORI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF MANAGULI,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3199 WP No. 200677 of 2024

¶15

TQ: BASAVANAND BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYPURA

¶16

SRI DURGAPPA S/O TIPPANNA HARIJAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF ABBIHAL, TQ: NIDAGUNDI DIST: VIJAYAPURA

¶17

SMT. KAMALABAI @ KAMALAWWA, W/O KUSAPPA JANKAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF MANAGULI, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI DIST: VIJAYAPURA

¶18

SHEKHAWWA D/O TIPPANNA ABYAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF MANAGULI, TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI GOURISH S/O SHARANAPPA HEGADE AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, RESIDENT OF JADAR GALLI, STATION ROAD, DIST: VIJAYPURA-586101.

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYPUR, VIJAYPUR-586101

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURA, VIJAYAPURA-586101

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3199 WP No. 200677 of 2024

¶26

THE TAHASILDAR, BASAVANA BAGEWADI TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586101

¶27

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HEMA L. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE, FOR R1; SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP, FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2023 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN CASE BEARING NO.RTS/REV/50/2022-2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-G.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Heard Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Hema L. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶31

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3199 WP No. 200677 of 2024

¶33

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions quashing the impugned order dated 18/12/2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent in Case bearing No.RTS/REV/50/2022-2023 as per Annexure-G, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

b) Pass such other order or directions as deems fit under the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶35

3. Brief facts for of the case for disposal of the writ petition are as under:

¶36

a) One Jivubai was the original owner of the property bearing Survey No.2812// measuring 8 acres 2 guntas in Managuli Village, Tq: Basavana Bagewadi. After her death, the petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S. No.196/2022. In the said suit there was a compromise decree and based on the same, they applied for mutation of revenue entries. Tahsildar effected necessary entries in the revenue

¶37

records. Later on the 1^st respondent filed an

¶38

- 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3199 WP No. 200677 of 2024

¶39

application to mutate his name in the revenue records. Said application was allowed by the Tahsildar and mutation entries were altered.

¶40

b) Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner.

¶41

c) Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28.01.2022 allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the 1^st respondent filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner belatedly. An application for seeking condonation of delay was also filed by the 1^st respondent before the Deputy Commissioner. The same is found in the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-G. However, without condoning the delay the order at Annexure-G came to be passed noting the fact that there is a civil suit. But still he directed that the name of Jivubai needs to be entered in the revenue records.

¶42

Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are

¶43

before this Court.

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3199 WP No. 200677 of 2024

¶45

Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the

¶46

petitioners contended that without condoning the delay the Deputy Commissioner ought not have passed orders at Annexure-G.

¶47

Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent could not

¶48

dispute the fact that unless the delay is condoned, revision petition could not have disposed of on merits by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶49

Learned High Court Government Pleader also

¶50

submits to pass suitable orders in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶51

Accordingly, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶54

ii. The order at Annexure – G is quashed.

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3199 WP No. 200677 of 2024

¶56

iii. Matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal in

¶57

accordance with law.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

SBS LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 66

Sushilabai and Ors. v. Gourish and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushilabai and Ors. v. Gourish and Ors.

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

Ishaq Guttedar S/O Chand Sab Guttedar Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Sidramappa Vs Laxmi and Ors.

Mahadevappa and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka and Anr.

Rubina Parveen Bagban W/O Rasheed Ahmed Bagban @ Mohammad Abdul Rasheed Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Nitin and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Basavakalyan Taluka Mahila Supplementary Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.