Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ramakrishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2020
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.12399 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
S/O. DODDAMUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS,
R/AT VAALEGERAHALLI VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR GURUMATH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI. NARASIMHARAJU M.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
REVENUE SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KANDAYA BHAVANA
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE THAHASILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
2
K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009.
5. SRI. S.R. NAGAPPA
S/O. LATE DODDARUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT BANJARAPALYA VILLAGE
THATAGUNI POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
6. SMT. T.P. SUJATHA
D/O. PUTTAMARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.1012, 1ST STAGE
15TH CROSS ROAD
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 078. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6
VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.2020,
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5 (SRI. R.S. NAGAPPA) IS HELD
SUFFICIENT BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 27.05.2009 PASSED BY R2 IN REVISION PETITION
NO.220/2004-05 AND REVISION PETITION 227/2005-06 (ANNX-
A), QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2005 PASSED BY THE R-3
IN R.A.(S) 114/2004-05 (ANNX-B) AND QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 03.10.2003 PASSED BY R-4 IN RRT(1) DIS 10/2003-04
(ANNX-C).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 03.10.2003 and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner by the orders dated 27.05.2009 and 11.02.2005 respectively, effecting mutation in the name of respondent No.5 in respect of Sy.No.175/1 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas and Sy.No.175/2 measuring 3 acres 22 guntas situate at B.M. Kaval, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased the land comprised in Sy.No.175/1, B.M. Kaval Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 2 acres 9 guntas from Amrutharaj under a registered sale deed dated 22.02.1992 and the land comprised in Sy.No.175/2, B.M. Kaval Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South 4 Taluk measuring 3 acres 22 guntas from Narayanamma, W/o. Balakrishna under a registered sale deed dated 22.04.1992.
3. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of the said registered sale deeds, the jurisdictional Tahsildar, by the order dated 25.08.1992 mutated the name of the petitioner in respect of both the survey numbers in M.R.No.5/92-93 and M.R.No.6/92-93. The said order passed by the Tahsildar was challenged by the respondent No.5 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, on hearing learned counsel for both the parties, by an order dated 11.02.2005, allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation made in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Special Tahsildar. After remand, the Special Tahsildar by impugned order dated 31.10.2003 at Annexure-C', rejected the application filed by the petitioner and 5 recorded a finding that, inspite of granting sufficient time, the present petitioner has continuously remained absent and very strangely, issued a direction to enter the name of respondent No.5 in respect of the properties are in question in Sy.Nos.175/1 and 175/2 without there being any reason as contemplated under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
4. On the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner, by an order dated 11.02.2005 dismissed the appeal and recorded a finding that the sale deeds executed in favour of the present petitioner by Amrutharaj and Narayanamma is without any right, title or interest over the lands in question.
5. On the revision filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, by order impugned dated 27.05.2009 reiterating the same reasons as assigned by the Assistant 6 Commissioner, ignored the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the revision petition. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri Gangadhar Gurumath, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that, after remand made by the Assistant Commissioner dated 11.02.2005, though the petitioner has not appeared before the Tahsildar, it is the bounden duty of the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records based on the registered Sale Deeds. However, on noticing the fact that the petitioner has remained continuously absent, rejected the application of the petitioner and proceeded to enter the name of respondent No.5 without assigning any reason whatsoever.
7
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the Competent Authority has to enter mutation and revenue records only on the basis of source of title as contemplated under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In the present case, the Tahsildar, without there being any source of title produced by respondent No.5, rejected the application filed by the petitioner and directed to mutate the name of respondent N.5 without authority of law. He would further contend that, on the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner, unfortunately decided the rights of the parties, ignoring the registered sale deeds executed by Amrutharaj and Narayanamma in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner has no right, title or interest over the properties in question without any authority of law and it is the domain of the civil Court.
8
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that, unfortunately, the Deputy Commissioner has also reiterated the very same reason, as assigned by the Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition. He would further submit that during the pendency of these revenue proceedings, the petitioner filed O.S.No.2166/2005 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the properties are in question. The respondent No.5 herein was the first defendant in the said suit. After contest, the suit came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2016 declaring that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the properties are in question and directed the first defendant to hand over vacant possession of the properties within two months.
10. It is also declared that the sale deed dated 06.11.2004 executed by defendant No.2 i.e. Sri V.C. Reddappa Chetty in favour of the first 9 defendant Sri R. Nagappa, respondent No.5 herein is not binding on the plaintiff and granted permanent injunction holding that the petitioner is the owner in possession. It is also submitted that, against the said judgment and decree, the respondent No.5 has filed R.F.A.No.1587/2016 before this Court and this Court, stayed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The said appeal is still pending adjudication between the parties. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
11. Per contra Sri K. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.6 sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and contended that the Tahsildar after matter was remanded by the Assistant Commissioner on 11.2.2005 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for change of khatha and has entered the name of the 5th respondent on the basis of inheritance, which is 10 confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and reaffirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Thereby all the authorities have concurrently directed to enter the name of the 5th respondent in the khatha in respect of the properties in question on the basis of inheritance. He therefore contended that such a finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
12. Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents-State while justifying the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, does not dispute the fact that the Assistant Commissioner cannot decide the title between the parties in respect of the properties in question.
13. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that according to the 11 petitioner, he has purchased the properties are in question under the registered Sale Deeds dated 22.2.1992 and 22.4.1992 respectively as per Annexures-G and G1. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of the said registered Sale Deeds, the jurisdictional revenue authorities have entered the name of the petitioners in the mutation records - MR No.5/92-93 and 6/92-93 which was the subject matter of appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who by the order dated 11.2.2005 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. After remand, the Tahsildar by the impugned order dated 31.10.2003 while rejecting the application of the petitioner has ignored the Sale Deeds and directed the revenue authorities to enter the name of the 5th respondent in the revenue records in respect of the properties are in question.
12
14. On careful perusal of the impugned orders, no reason is assigned by the Tahsildar for entering the name of the 5th respondent. Though the learned Counsel for respondent No.6 contended that it is based on the inheritance, but the entire order does not depict the same. No reason is assigned by the Tahsildar in entering the name of the 5th respondent. On appeal filed by the present petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner while narrating the facts has gone to an extent to record a finding that the sale deeds have been executed by Shri Amrithraj and Sri K. Narayanamma without any right and title over the lands in question. Shri Nagarajappa has utterly failed to produce any documents to substantiate the right and title over the lands in question held by Shri Amrithraj and Smt. K. Narayanamma and accordingly, has dismissed the appeal. On revision petition filed by the present petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, very 13 strangely the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a finding that the petitioner has not placed any material to show as to how his vendors - Shri Amrithraj and Shri N.V. Balakrishna husband of Smt. K. Narayanamma, have acquired the lands by Survey/Akarband Durasthi in Sy.Nos. 175/1 and 175/2 respectively. Even looking into the recitals of the Sale Deeds, there is a mention that they are their ancestral properties but no such documents pertaining to the respective lands held by their ancestors are produced. Therefore, he dismissed the revision petition.
15. It is also not in dispute that the present petitioner filed O.S.No.2166/2005 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the very properties are in question in the present writ petition. The 5th respondent herein was the 3rd defendant therein. The trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence on record framed five issues and after hearing 14 both the parties, by the judgment and decree dated 17th August, 2016 decreed the suit with costs declaring that the petitioner-plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties (properties in question in the present writ petition) and that the Sale Deed dated 6.11.2004 executed by the 2nd defendant -Sri V.C. Reddappa Chetty as power of attorney holder of 1st defendant - Sri R. Nagappa in favour of the 3rd defendant - Smt. T.P. Sujatha are not binding on the plaintiff-petitioner. Further the present 6th respondent, who was 3rd defendant was directed to hand over actual, vacant possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff-Sri Ramakrishnappa- petitioner herein within a period of two months from the date of judgment and decree. It is also not in dispute that the 6th respondent, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, filed an appeal before this Court in R.F.A. 1587/2018 and this Court has stayed the further proceedings. 15
16. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner has already filed original suit for declaration and injunction and the trial Court has declared that the petitioner is the owner of the properties are in question. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the 5th respondent has been nullified by the Civil Court by the judgment and decree dated 17th August, 2016 declaring that the petitioner is the owner of the properties in question.
17. In so far as the entries are concerned, any judgment and decree to be passed by this Court in RFA 1587/2018 pending adjudication between the parties will be binding on the parties as well as the revenue authorities. The orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are without any basis and cannot be sustained in view 16 of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court on 17th August, 2016.
18. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 3.10.2003, 27.5.2009 and 11.2.2005 passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively are hereby quashed holding that the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner will always be subject to the result of RFA No.1587/2016 pending between the parties and if any judgment and decree to be passed is always binding on the parties as well as the revenue authorities.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
Judge ST- Page 1 to 9 Nsu/- Page 10 to end-