Smt. Susheelamma Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.13804/2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.12, ETC.

¶38

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:14601-DB WA No. 69 of 2025

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

¶43

Aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13804 of 2023, respondent No.12 therein has preferred this writ appeal.

¶44

The dispute pertains to entry in the revenue records regarding 3 guntas of land in Survey No.107/8 of Thigalachowdadenahalli village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluka. The said property was originally said to have been owned by one N.Narayanappa and after his demise, it is said to have been alienated by one Sri N.Nagaraju (S/o N.Narayanappa) in favour of the appellant herein. The appellant claims right to the said property by virtue of the said sale deed.

¶45

The case of respondent No.12 herein is that he belongs to the family of the original owner N.Narayanappa and he has inherited the said property and he has perfected the title over the same by way of a compromise decree passed in O.S.No.441/2011 and that pursuant to the said decree, the revenue documents stood in his name and the appellant by way of a fabricated sale deed has made a claim regarding the property and that respondent No.12 has filed

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14601-DB WA No. 69 of 2025

¶47

O.S.No.966/2019 for a declaration against the appellant herein and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, ignoring the pendency of the suit, respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order dated 21.04.2023 at Annexure-A to the writ petition under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, which has been rightly reversed by the learned Single Judge. For that reason, he prays that the writ appeal be dismissed.

¶48

The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge erred in partly allowing the writ petition?

¶49

The revenue documents do not confer title of the property on any person. The appellant is claiming a right over the property by virtue of a sale deed registered in the year 2010 and respondent No.12 is making a claim based on a compromise decree passed in O.S.No.441/2011. As to who is the actual owner of the property, a comprehensive suit is filed by way of O.S.No.966/2019, which is pending. In the meanwhile, at the behest of respondent No.12, respondent No.3-the Assistant Commissioner had mutated the name of respondent No.12 in the revenue records regarding the property concerned in the year 2013 itself. This has been

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:14601-DB WA No. 69 of 2025

¶52

challenged by the appellant herein before the respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner, who based on the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant herein in the year 2010 has ordered the mutation be cancelled and the revenue entries be transferred in the name of the appellant herein. The said order has been passed without taking into consideration the pendency of O.S.No.966/2019. The learned Single Judge on the ground that the order of respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner has been passed without considering the pendency of O.S.No.966/2019 has rightly set aside the same and while restoring the earlier mutation entry which stood in the name of respondent No.12, has directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to forthwith reflect the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.966/2019 in the other rights column in the RTC pertaining to the land concerned. We do not see any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. With the jurisdictional Tahsildar mentioning the pendency of O.S.No.966/2019 in the RTC, any purchaser is put to notice about the same. The rights of the appellant and respondent No.12 herein, as admitted by the said parties, has to be decided in the original suit.

¶53