Basappa S Vs the Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Basappa S Vs the Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-J quashed and set aside; the order passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner confirmed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the subsequent dismissal of the petitioner's suit in O.S.No.264/2013 would create a right in favour of the private respondents. +1 more

Court's answer

Subsequent dismissal of the petitioner's suit in O.S.No.264/2013 would not create any right in favour of the private respondents.

Ratio / Principle

The Deputy Commissioner was not justified in adverting to the judgment rendered in the subsequent suit O.S.No.264/2013 when the petitioner had placed on record the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.386/1988 and confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.99/2001.

Key takeaways

In the earlier suit the petitioner was declared absolute owner and in possession; the decree was confirmed by the Appellate Court and the two decrees (O.S.No.386/1988 and R.A.No.99/2001) have attained finality.ratio¶46
The contention that the boundaries in the sale deed obtained by the petitioner do not tally, making the respondents (subsequent purchasers) absolute owners, cannot be acceded to in mutation proceedings when the private respondents have admittedly suffered a decree in O.S.No.386/1988.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), W.P. No. 55 of 2025 (KLR-RES), decided 10 January 2025 — Mutation/revenue records. The Deputy Commissioner's order (Annexure-J, No. RP 23/2019-20, dated 24.12.2024) reversing the Assistant Commissioner's direction to mutate the petitioner's name was quashed. Held: dismissal of the petitioner's subsequent suit O.S.No.264/2013 creates no right in favour of the private respondents, whose father Sannappa had suffered a decree in O.S.No.386/1988 declaring the petitioner absolute owner of Sy.No.9 of Doddaghatta Village, Birur Hobli, Kadur Taluk (4 acres) and permanently restraining interference, which decree was confirmed in R.A.No.99/2001; both decrees having attained finality, the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in relying on the subsequently dismissed suit. A plea of boundary mismatch in the sale deed cannot be acceded to in mutation proceedings against parties bound by the decree. The Assistant Commissioner's order stands confirmed.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:895 WP No. 55 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 55 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

BASAPPA S, S/O LATE SAGANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O TODDAGATTA VILLAGE, BIRUR POST, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 116.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 116.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TARIKERE SUB DIVISION, TARIKERE - 577 116, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:895 WP No. 55 of 2025

THE TAHASILDAR,

KADUR TALUK - 577 116, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK - 577 116, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

GOVINDAPPA, S/O SANNAPPA, MAJOR, R/O TODDAGATTA VILLAGE, BIRUR POST, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 116.

RAJAPPA,

S/O SANNAPPA, MAJOR, R/O TODDAGATTA VILLAGE, BIRUR POST, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 116.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. M.V.V. RAMANA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-J BEARING NO. RP 23/2019-20 DATED 24.12.2024 VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:895 WP No. 55 of 2025

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned order passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-J, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has reversed the order passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, who had directed to mutate the petitioner’s name aligning with the judgment rendered in O.S.No.386/1988 confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.99/2001.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 and learned counsel appearing for caveat respondents No.6 and 7.

Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, strictly aligning with the adjudication done by a competent civil court in O.S.No.386/1988, proceeded to issue directions to the Tahsildar to effect the petitioner’s name in terms of the decree obtained in O.S.No.386/1988

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:895 WP No. 55 of 2025

confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.99/2001. The Deputy Commissioner, placing reliance on the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.264/2013, has reversed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether subsequent dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.264/2013, would create a right in favour of private respondents No.4 and 5. My answer is emphatically no.

The petitioner herein files a comprehensive suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of petition land in O.S.No.386/1988. The father of respondents No.6 and 7, namely, Sannappa, who was arrayed as a defendant in the said suit. A specific issue was raised in the suit as to whether the petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. The Court, in O.S.No.386/1988, while answering issue No.1 in the affirmative, held that the petitioner, who was the plaintiff, succeeded in substantiating his title over

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:895 WP No. 55 of 2025

the petition property and also his possession. This Court deems it fit to cull out the operative portion of the judgment, which reads as under:

"The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed against the defendant as follows:

It is ordered and declared that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.9 of Doddaghatta Village, Birur Hobli, Kadur Taluk, measuring 4 acres. It is further ordered that, the defendant is hereby permanently restrained from causing any sort of interference over the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Parties to bear their own costs."

This decree is confirmed by the Appellate Court

in R.A.No.99/2001. Since private respondents' father,

Sannappa, has suffered a decree in O.S.No.386/1988 confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.99/2001, the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in adverting to a subsequent suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.264/2013. This Court is unable to understand what prompted the petitioner to file one more suit when his rights were declared and the suit stood concluded pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.386/1988. Even if the petitioner’s subsequent suit is dismissed, the private

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:895 WP No. 55 of 2025

respondents will not acquire rights based on a dismissal of the suit. In an earlier suit, the petitioner is declared as an absolute owner and in possession. This decree is confirmed by the Appellate Court and these two decrees have attained finality. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in adverting to the judgment rendered in the subsequent suit when the petitioner has placed on record the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.386/1988 and confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.99/2001.

The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 and 7 that the boundaries in the sale deed obtained by the petitioner do not tally and therefore the respondents, who are subsequent purchasers, are the absolute owners cannot be acceded to in mutation proceedings when admittedly private respondents have suffered a decree in O.S.No.386/1988.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:895 WP No. 55 of 2025

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the

following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed;

ii. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-J is hereby

quashed and set aside;

iii. The order passed by respondent No.3-Assistant

Commissioner is hereby confirmed.

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

HDK CT: BHK