Sri Chowdareddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, Digitally signed OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, by SHARADAVANI DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX, B SIDLAGHATTA ROAD, Location: High CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101. Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX, SIDLAGHATTA ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU ROAD,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1515 WP No. 5151 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 125.

¶18

SRI. VENKATAMMA W/O. VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT VYJAKUR VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK - 563 128.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. B.S. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHINTAMANI IN RA NO.437/2022 OF ALLOWING THE SAID APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE MR NO.95-03/1993-94 REVENUE ENTRIES MADE TO THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER (AT ANNEXURE-T), SO ALSO THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RA 97/2023-24 DATED.21/10/2024 OF REJECTING THE APPEAL / REVISION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AT ANNEXURE-Q) AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Matter is coming up for preliminary hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.4, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:1515 WP No. 5151 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is directed towards the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-Q dated 07.12.2023 and orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-T dated 21.10.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question namely 1 acre in Sy.No.23 of Hirepalya Village, Kaivara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk was granted in favour of Sri.Kadirappa in the year, 1978. Sri.Kadirappa died on 31.08.1991. Thereafter, Kadirappa's widow, Smt. Kadiramma, executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 17.12.1993. On the strength of the said sale deed, the petitioner got the mutation entries changed in terms of M.R.No.95-3/1993-1994 and the petitioner is in possession of the lands in question. However, respondent No.4 herein filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in RA(Chin)437/ 2021-22 raising a challenge to the mutation entry made in the year 1993-1994 without seeking condonation of delay for filing the appeal at a belated stage. No orders are passed by the Assistant Commissioner regarding delay and on the other hand, accepting the contention of respondent No.4 that she had filed a suit in O.S.No.262/2014 and since the same was dismissed

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1515 WP No. 5151 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

for non-prosecution, respondent No.4 has filed a Miscellaneous Petition No.01/2021 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani and accordingly, the mutation entry that was made in the year 1993-1994 has been cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.97/2023-2024 and the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the revision petition, upholding the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the authorities have erred in accepting the contention of respondent No.4. Even if it is a fact that a miscellaneous petition has been filed at the hands of respondent No.4, that will not give any power to the Assistant Commissioner to set aside a mutation entry which is based on a registered sale deed executed in the year 1993. Learned counsel submits that unless there is a declaration made by a competent Civil Court setting aside the sale deed or declaring the same to be void, the revenue authorities cannot change the mutation entries at this stage.

¶33

5 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:1515 WP No. 5151 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No. 4, however, submits that Sri.Kadirappa had left behind a Will bequeathing the property in question in favour of respondent No.4 and therefore, Smt.Kadiramma had no rights to dispose of the property in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.4, learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner. Although respondent No.4 may have filed a suit and being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution, a miscellaneous petition filed by respondent No.4 is still pending consideration, that by itself will not give any rights to the respondent No.4 to seek change in the mutation entry which is made in accordance with law. Further, unless there is a declaration made by a competent Civil Court in respect of the said sale deed, which the petitioner got executed from the widow of Sri.Kadirappa, the original grantee and Kathedar,

¶38

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1515 WP No. 5151 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

such action cannot be taken by the revenue authorities to set aside a mutation entry which was made in accordance with law.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed while setting aside the impugned orders at Annexures-T and Q passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chintamani Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkabalapur District. If the revenue entries are in the meanwhile mutated, directions are hereby issued to the Tahsildar, Chinthamani Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner Chikkabalapur District, to immediately restore the mutation entries in the revenue records in terms of the earlier mutation entry bearing M.R.No.95-3/1993-1994 forthwith.

¶42

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶43

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT-SG

Sri Chowdareddy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chowdareddy v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Mr Chennappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Wilson Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jayalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Peer Vs Assistant Commissioner

Sri P S Rajegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka