Dismissed

Sri Chikka Seethappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024WP/22663/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging mutation of land records under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Court held that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide title and refused to interfere as the petitioners had filed a comprehensive suit questioning the underlying sale deed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; mutation subject to outcome of pending civil suit.

Sri Chikka Seethappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37345 WP No. 22663 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 22663 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. CHIKKA SEETHAPPA, S/O LATE SIMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶8

SRI. GANESHAPPA, S/O LATE SIMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT THINDLU VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, AT DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37345 WP No. 22663 of 2024

¶17

THE TASILDHAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE - 562 114.

¶18

DEPUTY TASILDHAR, NADA KACHERI, JADIGENAHALLI, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114.

¶19

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, JADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI-2, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114.

¶20

SMT. PAPAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2022 IN RA(H) 12/2019-20 PASSED BY THE R-2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA, VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2022 IN RA(H)-12/2019-20 PASSED BY THE R- 2/AC, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA, VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37345 WP No. 22663 of 2024

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶26

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are assailing the order of respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, who has directed to mutate the name of respondent No.6 by taking note of registered sale deed dated 15.05.1972 obtained by her husband Ramaiah from one Malamma. The said order is confirmed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶31

learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶32

The petitioners herein have instituted a suit assailing the sale deed obtained by respondent No.6 and relief of declaration is also sought. This Court deems it fit to cull out the prayer sought in O.S.No.14/2022, which reads as under:

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37345 WP No. 22663 of 2024

¶34

"Wherefore the plaintiffs 1&2 here in most respectfully prays that this Honorable Court be pleased to

¶35

a) pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs 1&2 that they are the absolute owners in possession of the plaint suit schedule property as per the partition deed dated 22/1/1972.

¶36

b) to declare the sale deed dated 15/5/1972 entered into between late Malamma in favour of Defendant no 1 husband, defendant 2- 6's father Ramaiaha S/o Simpegowda in respect of the suit schedule property measuring 38guntas is not binding on the plaintiffs 1&2.

¶37

c) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1-6 here is anybody claiming under them from interfering with schedule in any manner.

¶38

d) to grant such other relief as this Honorable Court deems file to grant in the circumstances of the case."

¶39

On examining the prayer, this Court has

¶40

noticed that the petitioners have already approached the competent civil court and a comprehensive suit seeking relief of declaration is filed. The petitioners have also questioned the sale deed executed by one Malamma in favour of the husband of respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 is arrayed as defendant No.1 in the said suit.

¶41

The family tree furnished by the petitioners is examined by this Court. The petitioners are representing the branch of Seethappa. Respondent No.6's vendor,

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37345 WP No. 22663 of 2024

¶43

Malamma, was the only daughter of son Munishami. Malamma has executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.6's husband under registered sale deed dated 15.05.1972. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to persuade this Court to demonstrate that there is procedural error in deciding the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner and the appeal is allowed without passing orders on the impleading application filed by the petitioners. This Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence at this juncture having regard to the fact that the petitioners have already approached the competent civil court questioning the sale deed obtained by the husband of respondent No.6. The sale deed is of the year 1972. Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'Act') casts mandatory duty on the authority to effect changes in the khatha when the acquisition of rights through registered document is reported. The power and jurisdiction of revenue authority to decide the adversarial rights of the parties is impermissible in mutation

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37345 WP No. 22663 of 2024

¶45

proceedings. Time and again, this Court, in a catena of judgments, has held that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide right and title under Section 128 of the Act. The petitioners have also challenged the sale deed obtained by the husband of respondent No.6. A plain reading of Section 128 of the Act makes it clear that it is the duty of the registering authority to make a report of acquisition of right and accordingly, there has to be change in the khatha strictly adhering and aligning to the conveyance under registered document under Section 128 of the Act. Therefore, it is in this background, this Court is not inclined to accede to the contention raised by the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner's order directing the Tahasildar to mutate respondent No.6's name without affording opportunity to the petitioners. Once acquisition of right is reported, which is based on a registered sale deed, this is no further scope for enquiry under Section 128 of the Act.

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37345 WP No. 22663 of 2024

¶47

6. Unless the petitioners are able to substantiate

¶48

and prove their title over the suit schedule property and unless the sale deed obtained by the husband of respondent No.6 is declared as null and void and not binding on the petitioners, no purpose will be served by remitting the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner to afford an opportunity to the petitioners. Entries in the revenue records will be subject to the outcome of the pending suit. Since respondent No.6 is tracing title through her husband obtained way back in 1972, the revenue authorities were justified in mutating the name of respondent No.6 on account of the death of the original purchaser, Ramaiah. The entries in RTC are subject to the outcome of pending comprehensive suit in O.S.No.14/2022. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no indulgence can be granted on the ground of principles of natural justice or procedural error as indicated in the writ petition.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:37345 WP No. 22663 of 2024

¶51

For the forgoing reasons, this Court passes the

¶52

following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The writ petition is dismissed;

¶55

ii. The mutation in favour of respondent No.6 will be subject to outcome of the suit in O.S.No.14/2022;

¶56

iii. All contentions are kept open.

¶57

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶58

HDK

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK

Sri Chikka Seethappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chikka Seethappa 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

Sri C Chethan Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Arnold Mendonca Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Venkatachalaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. G N Devaraj Vs the Assistant Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate

Mrs. Saphia Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Ramanatha Shetty Vs State of Karnataka