Dismissed

K. Thimmaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024WP/52013/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner assailed an order setting aside a mutation entry in his favor, citing a conflict with an older mutation in favor of Respondent 5. The Court held that conflicting titles require Civil Court determination. Since the petitioner had filed and subsequently withdrawn the related civil suit, the writ petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits following the withdrawal of the underlying civil suit.

K. Thimmaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19824 WP NO.52013 OF 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.52013 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K. THIMMAIAH S/O KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O 'SRI BALAJI NILAYA' GANDHINAGAR NEW EXTENSION, NEAR KOTEKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRAKASH SALMANI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577101.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶14

Location: High

¶15

Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶18

PADMAYYA S/O UDDAYYA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O BILLENAHALLI, AMBALE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:19824 WP NO.52013 OF 2017

¶21

GOWRAMMA W/O MULLEGOWDA AGE : MAJOR R/O KANCHENAHALLI, AMBALE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. MOOVENDRAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. K.N. NITHISH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19^TH JANUARY, 2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN R.P. NO.8/2014-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-M; DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE MUTATION ENTRY AS PER M.R. NO.16/2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶25

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

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order dated 19^th January, 2016 (Annexure-M) passed by the respondent No.1 in R.P. No.8/2014-15; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondents to restore the mutation entry as per M.R.No.16/2010-11 (Annexure-E).

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:19824 WP NO.52013 OF 2017

¶30

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition

¶31

as averred in the petition are that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of land bearing Survey No.17 measuring to

¶32

an extent of 4 acre 13 guntas situate at Billenahalli Village, Ambale Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk and District, having purchased the said land from the respondent No.4 as per registered Sale Deed dated 01^st June, 2011 (Annexure-D). It is further stated in the petition that, after the execution of aforesaid Sale Deed, M.R. No.16/2010-11 is made in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-E. It is also stated that the respondent No.5 has filed R.A.No.259/2011-12, challenging the mutation in M.R.No.16/2010-11 before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, by order dated 01^st January, 2014 (Annexure-J), rejected the appeal preferred by the respondent No.5. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.5, preferred Revision petition before the respondent No.1 in R.P.No.8/2014-15 and the respondent No.1, after considering the material on record, by order dated 19^th January, 2016 (Annexure-M), set-aside the order dated 01^st January, 2014 passed by the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:19824 WP NO.52013 OF 2017

¶35

Heard Sri. Prakash Salmani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3; Sri. Moovendran R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4; and Sri. K.N. Nithish, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

¶36

Sri. Prakash Salmani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, M.R. No.16/2010-11 has been made by the revenue authorities pursuant to the registered Sale Deed dated 01^st June, 2011 executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order is contrary to law. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶37

On the other hand, Sri. Nithish K.N., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 reiterates the averments made in the statement of objections and contended that the land bearing Survey No.17 of Billenahalli Village, Ambale Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk and District, originally belong to the father of the respondent No.4 and the father of the respondent

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:19824 WP NO.52013 OF 2017

¶40

No.4 had sold the land in question in favour of one Ramegowda as per registered Sale Deed dated 12^th May, 1937 (AnnexureR1). Thereafter, pursuant to the division of property in the family of late Ramegowda, the property was inherited by his children viz. Mullegowda, Eregowda and Siddegowda. It is further submitted by Sri. Nithish K.N., learned counsel that the husband of the respondent No.5-Mullegowda had purchased the land in question as per registered Sale Deed dated 15^th October, 1958 (Annexure-R2) and thereafter, the M.R.No.1/1958-59 (Annexure-R4) has been made by the competent authority. In that view of the matter, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 that the finding recorded by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order dated 19^th January, 2016 (Annexure-M) is just and proper and same does not require interference in this petition. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has preferred Original Suit No.76 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkamagaluru, seeking relief of declaration and injunction; and withdrawn the said suit as not pressed and therefore, the writ petition itself is misconceived. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:19824 WP NO.52013 OF 2017

¶43

Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1.

¶44

In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, though the M.R. No.16/2010-11 (Annexure-E) has been made by the revenue authorities pursuant to the registered Sale Deed dated 01^st June, 2011 (Annexure-D), perusal of the registered Sale Deed dated 15^th October, 1958 (Annexure-R2) executed in favour of the husband of the respondent No.5 would indicate that, land in question is originally belong to the father of the respondent No.4-Uddayya and the said Uddayya in turn, has sold the land in question in favour of one Ramegowda as per registered dated 12^th May, 1937 (Annexure-R1). After the demise of said Ramegowda, the legal representatives of Ramegowda sold the land in question in favour of the husband of the respondent No.5 as per registered Sale Deed dated 15^th October, 1958 (Annexure-R2). Pursuant to the same, M.R. No.1/1958-59 (Annexure-R4) has been made by the competent authority. In that view of the matter, as there are two Mutations viz. M.R.No.1/1958-59 and M.R.No.16/2010-11, it is only for the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:19824 WP NO.52013 OF 2017

¶47

Civil Court to decide the rights of the parties. However, perusal of the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.5 would indicate that the petitioner herein has filed suit seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction in Original Suit No.76 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkamagaluru and the said suit came to be dismissed at the instance of the petitioner herein having filed memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition as not pressed. In that view of the matter, the petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

ARK

K. Thimmaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Thimmaiah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J Vijendra Nayak Vs the Land Tribunal

Sri Jameel Ahamed Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Jasmine Kundar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjanayaka Vs the Deputy Commissioner

C. Somashekaraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Narasimaiah Vs the State of Karnataka