Allowed

Revappa S/O Gurusiddappa Mamadapur v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2024WP/200692/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a Writ Petition under Article 226, allowed a petition challenging a mutation order passed by a Tahsildar who relied on an ex-parte decree subsequently set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The court observed that since the decree forming the basis of the mutation order had been set aside and the underlying suit was pending, the mutation order could no longer subsist

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Tahsildar was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration afresh.

Revappa S/O Gurusiddappa Mamadapur Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 200692 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

REVAPPA S/O GURUSIDDAPPA MAMADAPUR AGE 53 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O ALAND COLONY, KALABURAGI, TQ AND DIST KALABURAGI – 585 105.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001.

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶16

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI DIST KALABURAGI 585 102.

¶17

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALABURGI AT

¶18

KALABURAGI 585 102.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI AT

¶20

KALABURAGI 585 102.

¶21

TAHSILDAR KALABURAGI AT KALABURAGI 585 102.

¶22

KARNATAKA STATE WAKF BOARD NO. 6 CUNNINGHHAM ROAD,

¶23

VASANT NAGAR,

��

BENGALURU 560 051.

REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI G.B. YADAV,HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5 SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-6)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, THEREBY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO 4 AS AT ANNEXURE- K AND REMOVE THE NAME OF RESPONDENT NO 6 BY MUTATING THE NAME OF PETITION IN RESPECT OF LAND SY NO. 185/3 MEASURING 3 ACRES 10 GUNTA SITUATED AT TAJSULTANPUR KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶35

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶36

“i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, there by quash the impugned order dated: 05.08.2022 passed by t eh respondent No.4 as at Annexure-K and remove the name of respondent No.6 by mutating the name of petition in respect of land Sy No. 185/3 measuring 3 acres 10 gunta situated at Tajsultanpur Kalaburagi, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

��

¶38

¶39

ii) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶41

material on record.

¶42

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 6^th respondent – Wakf Board instituted the suit in O.S.No.32/2009 against the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner before the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal – Kalaburagi. The said suit came to be decreed in favour of the 6^th respondent – Wakf Board vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, one Ranappa and others, predecessors-in-title of the petitioner filed the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the said ex-parte judgment and decree. The said petition in C.Misc.No.1/2016 came to be allowed vide order dated 21.03.2020, as a result of which, the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.32/2009 came to be restored to the file of the Wakf Tribunal and the same is pending adjudication as on today.

¶43

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said suit in O.S.No.32/2009 is pending adjudication as on today, the 5^th

¶44

¶45

��

¶46

respondent – Tahsildar has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 05.08.2022 directing insertion of the name of the 6^th respondent – Wakf Board in the revenue records in respect of the subject land on the sole ground that there was a decree passed in favour of the Wakf Board in the aforesaid O.S.No.32/2009.

¶47

The aforesaid facts and circumstances and perusal of the impugned order will clearly indicate that the sole ground on which the 5^th respondent – Tahsildar has directed insertion of the name of the 6^th respondent – Wakf Board in the revenue records is by placing reliance upon the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.32/2009 in favour of the 6^th respondent – Wakf Board. However, the Tahsildar failed to consider and appreciate that as on the date of the impugned order dated 05.08.2022, the said ex-parte judgment and decree had already been set aside in C.Misc.No.1/2016 dated 21.03.2020 and consequently, the very basis for inserting the name of the 6^th respondent – Wakf Board in the revenue records did not subsist any longer and as such, the impugned order passed by the 5^th respondent – Tahsildar deserves to be set aside and the matter be

¶48

¶49

��

¶50

remitted back to the 5^th respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by leaving open all contentions.

¶51

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶54

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-K dated 05.08.2022 passed by the 5^th respondent – Tahsildar is hereby set aside.

¶55

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 5^th respondent – Tahsildar for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶56

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., to the 5^th respondent – Tahsildar, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶57

(v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter between

¶58

the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶59

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶60

Srl.

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Revappa S/O Gurusiddappa Mamadapur v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revappa S/O Gurusiddappa Mamadapur v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

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

Bagodappa and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Maruti S/O Sangappa Bhovi and Anr. Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Society and Ors.

Maruti S/O Sangappa Bhovi and Anr. Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Society and Ors.

S Venkataswamy Vs S Shankar

S. Venkataswamy Vs S. Aswath S/O Siddappa

Kiran Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.