Allowed

Sri Subbarayappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024WP/25830/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against revenue orders on rival claims of title to land for RTC mutation. The High Court held that a Section 128 enquiry is summary; authorities must only ascertain flow of title from registered sale deeds, not decide title. All impugned orders were quashed and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry with all title deeds produced, with interim restoration

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; matter remanded to Assistant Commissioner for fresh Section 128 enquiry; parties to appear on 21.10.2024; RTC name restored to pre-Annexure-C position; decision within four mo

Sri Subbarayappa Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:39164 WP No. 25830 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 25830 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SUBBARAYAPPA, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT POOJA RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK - 562 114, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BASAVANNA M.D, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

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

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39164 WP No. 25830 of 2024

¶17

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR, HOSAKOTE - 562 114, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶19

SMT. LAVANYA, W/O LATE N. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED BOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KITHGANURU VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 36.

¶20

SRI. N. PUNEETH, S/O LATE N. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT KITHGANURU VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 36.

¶21

KUM. N. CHANDANA, D/O LATE N. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, R/AT KITHGANURU VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 36.

¶22

(SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. LAVANYA)

¶23

SRI. K.R. KESHAVA REDDY, S/O LATE R. RAMAREDDY, AGE IN MAJOR, R/AT NO.P-90, 9TH MAIN, JEEVANBHEEMANAGARA, BANGALORE - 75.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39164 WP No. 25830 of 2024

¶25

SRI. P. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED IN MAJOR, R/AT BHIMAPURA VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.A, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJEEV RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5, R6 AND R7)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN REV.PETN.NO. 231/2018, DATED 25.06.2024 ON THE FILE OF R-2 WHICH IS PRODUCED UNDER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to

¶32

¶33

The petitioner before this Court is tracing title through one Patel Veerabhadrappa s/o Revanna Shetty. While private respondents No.5 to 7 are asserting title based on 2005 sale deed obtained from G.Munivenkatappa

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39164 WP No. 25830 of 2024

¶35

and his sons. On an appeal by the petitioner before respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, having taken cognizance of the flow of title held from original owner Patel Veerabhadrappa to the petitioner herein, has set aside some of the mutations by allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. This order is set aside by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner and a direction is issued to respondent No.4/Tahasildar to restore the name of the erstwhile owner.

¶36

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,

¶37

learned Senior counsel for respondents No.5 to 7 and learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶38

On meticulous examination of the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner has to substantiate the flow of title from original owner Patel Veerabhadrappa, which is clearly reflected at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner. While private respondents

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39164 WP No. 25830 of 2024

¶40

No.5 to 7 are asserting title based on 2005 sale deed obtained from one G.Munivenkatappa. Records also reveal that though Patel Veerabhadrappa sold the petition propery in favour of Venkataramanappa s/o Doddamuniswamappa under registered sale deed dated 26.11.1945 and thereafter there are series of alienation, the RTC continued to stand in the name of the original owner, Patel Veerabhadrappa. From the order passed by respondent No.3/Assisant Commissioner, the private respondents' title is not forthcoming. The order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner and respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner also does not advert to the title documents on which private respondents are asserting right over the petition property.

¶41

In an enquiry under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'Act'), it is a trite law that revenue authorities, while exercising powers under the provisions of the Act, have no jurisdiction to decide the right and title of the parties to the immovable

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39164 WP No. 25830 of 2024

¶43

property; however, there is a mandatory duty cast on the revenue authorities to effect changes in the RTC by taking cognizance of the registered sale deed. A situation may arise where two parties set up two rival title deeds. If such a situation arises, the revenue authorities have to only ascertain the flow of title and also examine the sale deed obtained by a party at the earliest point of time. Therefore, an enquiry, though contemplated under Section 129(4) and (5) of the Act, is admittedly summary in nature and this Court, after holding an enquiry in the above Section 129(4) and (5) of the Act, is quite restricted; the revenue authorities have to make only note of the title deeds and also ascertain the original owner referring to the old RTC. It is only upon examining these significant details, after hearing both parties, mutations are to be effected in terms of registered sale deed obtained by a party at the earliest point of time.

¶44

Though in the case the petitioner's flow of title

¶45

can be gathered from paragraphs No.2 and 3, private

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39164 WP No. 25830 of 2024

¶47

respondents No.5 to 7 are equally entitled to place on record all title documents of their vendors and the vendor's vendor before the competent authority. Since the title documents pertaining to private respondents No.5 to 7 are not placed on record, this Court is not in possession to examine as to who is entitled to get his name mutated under Section 128 of the Act in terms of a registered sale deed and relegate the party who is required to challenge the sale deed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be remanded back to respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner.

¶48

Respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner is required to secure a certified copy of all the title deeds. The petitioner and private respondents are obligated to place on record the certified copies of the sale deeds obtained by them by their respective vendors. Respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner shall verify the extent indicated in the sale deed and thereafter proceed to examine the sale deed obtained at the earliest point of

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39164 WP No. 25830 of 2024

¶50

time and after verifying the rival claim, shall proceed to effect the mutations in the manner prescribed under Section 128 of the Act.

¶51

Without expressing any opinion on merits, this

¶52

Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a matter needs to be remitted back to respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner. Parties are represented by their respective counsel; therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner and private respondents shall appear before respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner without expecting further notice at the hands of respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner. For the reasons stated supra, this Court passes the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶55

ii. The impugned order passed by the Tahasildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶56

iii. Respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner shall hold a fresh enquiry after securing

¶57

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39164 WP No. 25830 of 2024

¶58

respective title deeds from the petitioner and private respondents No.5 to 7 and after notifying the parties, shall hear them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law;

¶59

iv. The petitioner and private respondents shall appear before respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner on 21.10.2024;

¶60

v. Till the dispute is given quietus at the hand of respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, he shall direct respondent No.4/Tahasildar to restore the name as it existed prior to respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner passing order vide Annexure-C;

¶61

vi. Respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner shall decide the appeal within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶62

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶63

HDK

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2CT: BHK

Sri Subbarayappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Subbarayappa v. State of Karnataka

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

C D Mukundappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Narayanappa S/O Marisonnappa Vs Sri Pillappa

Vasu Bangera Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L Nayanisha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gayathri Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka