Allowed

Mr Ganesh v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/23817/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing a Tahasildar's endorsement refusing mutation of plaintiffs' names. The endorsement ignored a civil court decree declaring plaintiffs absolute owners and restraining specific sales. The court directed the Tahasildar to mutate plaintiffs' names and delete pending purchaser names under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 13.08.2024 is quashed. Tahasildar directed to issue notice to interested parties and mutate petitioners' names within four months.

Mr Ganesh Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38858 WP No. 23817 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23817 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. GANESH, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADDARAPALYA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶8

SMT. MANGALA, D/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶9

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

¶10

MR. MANJUNATH N, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶11

MR. SALLAPURI N @ SANDEEP, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDENCE OF VADDARAPALYA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. VASU K, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:38858 WP No. 23817 of 2024

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU, URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN NO.RRT/AK/CR/149/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.08.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN NO. RRTOK/35/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶25

The captioned petition is filed assailing the endorsement

¶26

issued by respondent No.2/Tahasildar, vide Annexure-F, indicating that the petitioners, though declared to be the absolute owners of the petition land and the sale deeds are declared to be not binding on them, are not entitled to get their names mutated as there are further alienations by defendant

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:38858 WP No. 23817 of 2024

¶29

No.2 and 3 in the said suit, who have alienated property pending consideration of the suit in O.S.No.660/2019.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶31

The impugned endorsement is clearly capricious and violates the decree rendered by the competent civil court in O.S.No.660/2019. Respondent No.2/Tahasildar unfortunately has given precedence to a pendente lite purchaser, ignoring a decree granted by a competent civil court declaring the present petitioners as absolute owners. The least respondent No.2/Tahasildar could have done on receipt of judgment was to go through the judgment and after issuing notice to the purchaser, was required to effect changes by exercising power under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short, 'Act') strictly aligning to the decree passed by the civil court in O.S.No.660/2019.

¶32

Before this Court delve s further, is compelled to cull out the issues framed in O.S.No.660/2019, which reads as under:

¶33

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property ?

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38858 WP No. 23817 of 2024

¶35

2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

¶36

3. Whether the sale deeds dated 29.04.1968 and the subsequent sale deeds executed in respect of the suit schedule property are not binding on the plaintiff ?

¶37

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled seeking declaration of their title, the order of permanent injunction and declaration that various sale deeds are not binding on them ?

¶38

5. What order or decree ?

¶39

This Court also deems it fit to cull out the relevant portion of the decree passed in O.S.No.660/2019, which reads

¶40

as under:

¶41

"It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiffs seeking declaration of their ownership, the order of permanent injunction and declaration that various sale deeds are not binding on them is hereby decreed.

¶42

The plaintiffs hereby declared that they are the owners of the suit schedule property.

¶43

The defendants are hereby restrained by the order of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

¶44

It is declared that the sale deeds dated 29.04.1968, 16.10.1995, 10.12.2004, 23.09.2005 and 29.02.2008 executed in respect of the suit schedule property are not binding on the plaintiffs.

¶45

Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost."

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38858 WP No. 23817 of 2024

¶47

Under the decree which is culled out supra, the competent civil court has declared the plaintiffs to be the absolute owners in possession of the petition land. The court further declared that the sale deeds obtained by one Revanna and R.Prabhakar Reddy are held to be not binding on the petitioners herein. Defendants No.2 and 3, Revanna and R.Prabhakar Reddy, pending consideration of the suit, have sold the petition land to one C.Uma and Krutisha N Gowda. This is clearly pending consideration of the suit filed in O.S.No.660/2019. Even if mutations are effected taking note of the alienation made by Revanna and R.Prabhakar Reddy, the said parties to the sale deeds having suffered a decree in O.S.No.660/2019, the respondent No.2/Tahasildar was required to issue notice to all the interested parties and, by taking cognizance of judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.660/2019, was required to effect necessary changes by having recourse to Section 128 of the Act.

¶48

The sale deed executed by Revanna through GPA holder R.Prabhakar Reddy in favour of C. Uma and Krutisha N Gowda is obviously subject to the outcome of the suit. Now that the suit is decreed and the plaintiffs are held to be the absolute

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38858 WP No. 23817 of 2024

¶50

owners and there is an injunction granted against Revanna and R.Prabhakar Reddy, who are parties to the suit. Respondent No.2/Tahasildar clearly erred in issuing the impugned endorsement. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said endorsement is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. Respondent No.2/Tahasildar is bound to mutate the names of the petitioners in terms of the decree passed in O.S.No.660/2019 and the pendente lite purchasers names (C.Uma and Krutisha N Gowda) are to be immediately deleted after notifying the said persons. The mutation in favour of the petitioners to the petition land, however, will be subject to challenge to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.660/2019, if any.

¶51

With these observations, this Court passed the

¶52

following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶55

ii. The impugned order dated 13.08.2024, passed by respondent No.2, vide Annexure-F, is hereby quashed and set aside;

¶56

iii. Respondent No.2/Tahasildar shall forthwith issue notice to Revanna s/o Veerabhadrappa

¶57

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38858 WP No. 23817 of 2024

¶58

through GPA holder R.Prabhakar Reddy s/o Rama Reddy, C.Uma w/o V.Nanjappa and Krutisha N Gowda, who is a minor represented by C.Uma;

¶59

iv. Respondent No.2/Tahasildar shall take cognizance of the observations made by this Court and shall also take cognizance of the decree passed by the court in O.S.No.660/2019 and after hearing all the interested parties, shall forthwith mutate the names of petitioners by exercising power conferred on the Tahasildar under the Act;

¶60

v. Till respondent No.2/Tahasildar conducts an enquiry and passes appropriate orders, C.Uma w/o V.Nanjappa and Krutisha N Gowda shall not further meddle and create third party rights;

¶61

vi. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶62

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶63

HDK

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK

Mr Ganesh v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ganesh v. the Assistant 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

Mrs Uma Hiremath W/O Air Commodore G L Hiremath Vs the Air Marshall

Sri C Venkata Swamy Vs Sri H N Shivanna

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs Munivenkatappa

Sri. Rajgopal. B. M. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bore Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Muddurangamma Vs Gangamma