Dismissed¶¶60

Smt Puttamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2025WP/42/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; RTC mutation and restoration; Deputy Commissioner's revision order R.P.34/2014-15 (29.07.2021) implementing civil court decrees; Assistant Commissioner's order under Section 136(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act set aside; primacy and binding nature of Civil Court decrees over revenue records; no indulgence despite pending second appeal RSA No.184/2024; O.S.No.448/2012 decree dated 05.03.2021 affirmed in R.A.No.15/2021; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Hassan district / Channarayapatna taluk; single-judge coram Sachin Shankar Magadum.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the writ petition stands dismissed, leaving intact the restoration of respondent No.5's name in the RTC effected by the Deputy Commissioner, with liberty to the petitioners to seek restoration subject to the outcome of RSA No.184/2024.

Smt Puttamma Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to any indulgence at this juncture, having suffered two concurrent decrees at the hands of the competent Civil Courts, merely because a second appeal has been filed by them in RSA No.184/2024.

¶¶37

Court's answer

The petitioners are not entitled to any indulgence: having suffered two concurrent decrees of the competent Civil Courts, pendency of their second appeal in RSA No.184/2024 affords them no basis for relief in this writ petition.

¶¶41

Ratio / Principle

Revenue authorities, as custodians of land records, are duty-bound to effect necessary changes in land records to reflect the rights determined by competent Civil Courts; when a Civil Court decree conclusively adjudicates ownership and possession, it attains primacy and must be implemented by the revenue authorities without hesitation, so that records under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act align with judicially determined rights.

¶¶53

Key takeaways

Respondent No.5 is entitled to seek restoration of her name in the RTC based on the judgments rendered by the Civil Courts; the petitioners face no impediment in seeking restoration of their names subject to the outcome of the pending second appeal in RSA No.184/2024.ratio¶¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC at Bengaluru (Sachin Shankar Magadum J), WP No.42 of 2025 (KLR-RES), decided 15.01.2025 — Petitioners, whose names had been entered in the RTC pursuant to an Assistant Commissioner's order under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, sought quashing of the Deputy Commissioner's order No.R.P.34/2014-15 dated 29.07.2021 restoring respondent No.5's name in the RTC on the strength of civil court decrees in her favour (O.S.No.448/2012, decreed 05.03.2021, affirmed in R.A.No.15/2021), while their second appeal RSA No.184/2024 remained pending. Holding that revenue authorities, as custodians of land records, are duty-bound to give primacy to and implement Civil Court decrees that conclusively determine ownership and possession, and answering 'emphatically no' to whether indulgence is available to parties carrying two concurrent decrees merely because a second appeal is pending, the Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that the petitioners remain free to seek restoration of their names subject to the outcome of RSA No.184/2024.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.42 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK AGRICULTURIST R/AT NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE

¶9

KASABA HOBLI ANEKERE POST CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116

¶10

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI.SHIVALINGEGOWDA S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ANEKERE POST CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025

¶18

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶19

BANGALORE-560001

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573116

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573116

¶22

THE TAHASILDHAR CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573116

¶23

SMT.LAKKAMMA W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NAGASAMUNDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.5)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-B BEARING NO.R.P.34/2014-15 DATED 29.07.2021 AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

In the captioned writ petition, the petitioners are

¶33

assailing the orders of respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, who has restored the name of respondent No.5 based on the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.448/2012 and confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.15/2021.

¶34

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶35

learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.5 and learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶36

3. The short point that needs consideration at the hands o this Court is:

¶37

Whether petitioners are entitled for any indulgence, at this juncture, having suffered two concurrent decrees at the hands of the competent Civil Courts merely because

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025

¶40

second appeal is filed by the petitioners in RSA No.184/2024?

¶41

My answer is emphatically no.

¶42

4. Respondent No.5’s name was reflected in the RTC and respondent No.5 asserts that the petition property is her ancestral property.

¶43

5. The petitioners herein filed an appeal before respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, who has entertained an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and ordered to mutate the name of the petitioners.

¶44

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.448/2012 seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction. The Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 05.03.2021. Assailing the judgment and decree of the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025

¶47

Trial Court, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal in R.A.No.15/2021. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal thereby affirmed the decree passed in O.S.No.448/2012.

¶48

7. Based on the judgments and decrees rendered in O.S.No.448/2012 and R.A.No.15/2021, respondent No.5 submitted a varadi to respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, annexing copies of these judgments. Respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, upon taking cognizance of the judgments passed by the competent Civil Courts, which unequivocally declared respondent No.5 as the absolute owner in possession of the petition property, exercised the statutory power vested under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Recognizing the binding nature of the Civil Court decrees, respondent No.2 proceeded to allow the revision petition filed by respondent No.5, thereby setting aside the order of respondent No.3 – Assistant

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025

¶51

Commissioner. Consequently, a direction was issued

¶52

to restore the name of respondent No.5 in the RTC.

¶53

8. It is imperative that revenue authorities, as custodians of land records, are duty-bound to effect necessary changes in land records to reflect the rights determined by competent Civil Courts. When a Civil Court decree adjudicates ownership and possession conclusively, it attains primacy and must be implemented by the revenue authorities without hesitation. Failure to do so would not only contravene the law but also undermine the sanctity of judicial pronouncements. In this context, the actions of respondent No.2 in recognizing and acting upon the decrees of the Civil Courts reflect adherence to the principles of legal finality and procedural propriety. Such steps ensure that the land records maintained under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act align with the judicially determined rights of parties.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025

¶56

9. Having noticed these significant details, this

¶57

Court is of the view that respondent No.5 is entitled to

¶58

seek restoration of her name in the RTC based on the

¶59

judgments rendered by the Civil Courts. There shall be no impediment for the petitioners to seek restoration of their names subject to outcome of the pending second appeal in RSA No.184/2024.

¶60

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶61

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶62

NBM

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt Puttamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Puttamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sukhaveniyamma Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Y C Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Basavanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Puttappa Beturu Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Narayanaswamy Vs Technical Assistant to

Smt.Savithramma Vs State of Karnataka