Dismissed¶58

Sri.Satyappa B Suraani, v. Sri.Sangappa K Suraani

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2025WP/60493/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation of names in Record of Rights; heirs of Beerappa Suraani; Sy.No.103/4 Savasuddi village, Raibag taluk, Belgaum; M.E.No.693 dated 20.08.1966; 1954 family partition; RB.RTA.208/2007-08; RTS.AP.71/2004-05; UTK.TVV-30:2003-04; writ of certiorari; Article 226 Constitution of India; serious dispute of ownership; remedy before Civil Court; KLR-RR/SUR; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; M.G. Uma J.

What did the court decide?

In view of mutation entry M.E.No.693 dated 20.08.1966, which was never challenged by the petitioners or their father and which records Kenchappa and Govindappa Suraani as owners, there is a serious dispute regarding ownership of the land in question. ¶53

Sri.Satyappa B Suraani, Vs Sri.Sangappa K Suraani — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4120 WP No. 60493 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 60493 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SATYAPPA B. SURAANI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE MR.BIRAPPA SURAANI, R/O. SAVASUDDI, RAIBAG,

¶9

DIST: BELGAUM.

¶10

MR. HANUMANTH B. SURAANI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE MR. BIRAPPA SURAANI, R/O. SAVASUDDI, RAIBAG,

¶11

DIST: BELGAUM.

¶12

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD

¶14

MR. BHIMAPPA B. SURAANI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. LATE MR. BIRAPPA SURAANI, R/O. SAVASUDDI, RAIBAG,

¶15

DIST: BELGAUM.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SMT RAJASHREE KUSUMAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI BAHUBALI. N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

MR. SANGAPPA K. SURAANI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE MR.KENCHAPPA SURAANI, R/O. SAVASUDDI,RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4120 WP No. 60493 of 2011

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶23

THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, KUDCHI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-'F' THE ORDER DATED 12^th AUGUST 2010, PASSED BY THE DY.COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM IN RB.RTA.208/2007-08 AS BEING BAD IN LAW AND AS CONSEQUENCE THERETO, DECLARE THE ORDERS DATED 12^th NOVEMBER 2007, PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI, IN RTS.AP.71/2004-05, AS PER ANNEXURE 'E' AND THE ONE DATED 23^rd JUNE 04, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, KUDACHI IN UTK.TVV-30:2003-04, AS PER ANNEXURE:'C', AS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4120 WP No. 60493 of 2011

¶30

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking

¶33

for the following reliefs:

¶34

a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-F, the order dated 12^th Aug. 10, passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Belgaum in R.RTA.208/2007-08 as being bad in law:

¶35

b. As a consequence thereto, declare the orders dated 12^th Nov 07, passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Chikodi, in RTS.AP.71/2004-05, as per Annexure-E and the one dated 23^rd June 04, passed by the Deputy Tahasildar, Kudachi in UTK.TVV-30:2003-04, as per Annexure-D as not sustainable;

¶36

c. Pass such other order or issue such other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper on facts and in the circumstances of the case;

¶37

d. Award costs.”

¶38

Heard Smt.Rajashree Kusumakar learned

¶39

counsel for the petitioners, Sri Chetan Munnoli learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the material on record.

¶40

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶41

the petitioners that, one Beerappa Suraani was the owner of 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.103/4 of Savasuddi village of

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4120 WP No. 60493 of 2011

¶43

Raibag taluk. After his death in the year 1984 his sons i.e., the petitioners became the owners in possession of the property and accordingly an application was filed by them before the Deputy Tahasildar to mutate their names in the Record of Rights as the legal representatives of

¶44

deceased Beerappa Suraani. The Deputy Tahasildar refused to mutate the names of the petitioners and passed the order as per Annexure-C, which was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner by passing the order as per Annexure-E. The same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner as per order Annexure-F. Hence, the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking to quash all the three orders and to direct the respondents to mutate their names in the Record of Rights.

¶45

Per contra , it is the contention of the learned

¶46

counsel for the private respondent that the petitioners and respondent no.1 belong to the same family. There was a family partition in the year 1954. Based on the oral partition, M.E.No.693 was effected on 20.08.1966,

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4120 WP No. 60493 of 2011

¶48

showing the names of Kenchappa and Govindappa Suraani was owners. However, in the Record of Rights by mistake, the name of Beerappa Suraani is entered as the owner in occupation of the property. Immediately after the death of Beerappa Suraani, an application was filed by the petitioners to enter their names in the Record of Rights. Since M.E.No.693 dated 20.08.1996, was never challenged by the petitioners, the Deputy Tahasildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have consistently rejected the claim of the petitioners. Petitioners, if at all, have to claim the rights over the property before the Civil Court. Therefore petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief.

¶49

Learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the contention of private respondent contended that, consistently pthe orders are passed by the revenue officials rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Thus petitioners have to establish their right before the Civil

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4120 WP No. 60493 of 2011

¶51

Court and therefore they are not entitled to claim any relief.

¶52

The facts stated above by all the learned

¶53

counsel for the parties are not in dispute. Admittedly, M.E.No.693 dated 20.08.1966 was entered by the revenue officials showing the names of Kenchappa and Govindappa Suraani as owners. It is stated that the said mutation entry was on the basis of the oral partition effected in the family during the year 1954. However, in-spite of M.E.No.693 dated 20.08.1966, the name of Beerappa Suraani appeared in the Record of Rights, which is the main reason for the petitioners to file application for mutating their names in the revenue records after the death of their father Beerappa Suraani. However, their claim was consistently rejected by revenue officials including the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that, M.E.No.693 dated 20.08.1966, was never challenged by petitioners or their father. Therefore it is clear that there is serious dispute regarding the ownership of the land in

¶54