Bharatkumar S/O Dharamachand Oswal Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2022 PASSED BY THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.100403/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.01 AT ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.02 AT ANNEXURE-H IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶31

The present intra-court appeal is filed under Section 4 of

¶32

the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P. No.100403/2022, whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶33

The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964¹ , and the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant

¶34

Commissioner .

¶35

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1964’

¶36

3 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5857-DB WA No. 100185 of 2022

¶38

The relevant facts are that respondent No.4 purchased land to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas in R.S.No.32/1 and 2 acres 19 guntas in R.S. No.32/4 at Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said properties’) vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.1989. It is the case of the petitioner that the said properties were purchased in the name of respondent No.4 by the said sale deed and that subsequently, the petitioner and respondent No.4 and other brothers entered into a partition on 26.10.1998 whereunder the lands purchased under the sale deed dated 31.03.1989 were allotted to the petitioner. It is further forthcoming that respondent No.4 had filed O.S. No.36/2014 for partition and separate possession and that another brother of the petitioner and respondent No.4 had also filed a suit in O.S. No.48/2017 which is also for partition and separate possession.

¶39

The petitioner sought to enter his name in the revenue records in respect of the said properties which were purchased under the sale deed dated 31.03.1989 based on the unregistered partition deed dated 26.10.1998. The respondent

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5857-DB WA No. 100185 of 2022

¶42

No.3-Tahasildar in M.R. No.H69/2019-2020 entered the name of the petitioner based on the unregistered partition deed. The same was set aside by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner in a challenge made by respondent No.4, and the revision petition filed by the appellant/petitioner before respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2021.

¶43

The learned Single Judge considering the factual matrix, has noticed that respondent No.4 had purchased the land in question under the sale deed dated 31.03.1989. It is further noticed that the suit in O.S. No.36/2014 did not relate to the lands in question and the subsequent suit in O.S. No.48/2017 though related to the lands in question, no finding was recorded recording the unregistered partition alleged to have been entered into on 26.10.1988. Hence, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that if the appellant/writ petitioner claimed title to the said properties based on the unregistered partition deed, it is for the appellant/writ petitioner to establish the same before the competent civil Court and thereafter, seek entry of his name in the revenue records.

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5857-DB WA No. 100185 of 2022

¶46

The finding of the learned Single Judge is just and proper in view of the fact that the appellant is seeking to agitate his rights over the said properties purchased under the registered sale deed dated 31.03.1989 by claiming title to the same through an unregistered partition deed alleged to have been entered on 26.10.1998. In the absence of the appellant/writ petitioner having his right adjudicated before the competent civil Court, the revenue authorities were justified in making the revenue entries in terms of the registered sale deed dated 31.03.1989. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶47

In view of the aforementioned, the above writ appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶48

Sd/(S G PANDIT) JUDGE

¶49

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶50

KMS

¶51

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3

Bharatkumar S/O Dharamachand Oswal v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharatkumar S/O Dharamachand Oswal v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs Smt. Anusha W/O Subash Bharmoji

Bank of India Vs M/S Goudar Jaggery Private Limited

Bank of India Vs M/S Shree Venkatesh and Company

Shri Thippa Naik S/O Laxma Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Vasanth S/O Maneshwar Sanu Vs Ningappa S/O Mahadevappa Malagi

The Divisional Controller Vs Smt. Geeta W/O Tammanna Bhajantri