Karnataka High Court
Sri. V. Jayaram vs The Deputy Commissioner on 2 January, 2020
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.40773/2019(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. V. JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE VEERAHANUMAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.22/1, B STREET,
EAST LINK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHETHAN B.R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIVAKUMAR N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
CHAPPARADAKALU VILLAGE,
DODDABALAPUR DEVANAHALLI ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BANGALORE RURAL - 561 203.
3. THE TAHASHILDAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
NELAMANGALA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
4. SRI. M.G. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2
S/O LATE GIDDAPPA,
RESIDING AT MARAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE,
ARISINAKUNTE POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
......
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-A THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED
18.06.2019 IN REVISION PETITION No.102/2018 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the Order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.102/2018, vide Annexure-A, setting aside the Order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner and directing the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Nelamangala, to restore the entries in the name of the 4th respondent herein. 3
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, his grand father, late Hanumaiah, originally owned land bearing Sy.No.2/2 totally measuring 2 acres 24 guntas, situated at Narasipalya village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, apart from other properties and an extent of 34 guntas was allotted to Chikkahanumaiah, the third son of late Hanumaiah. The revenue records were entered in the name of Chikkahanumaiah. After death of Chikkahanumaiah, his wife, Smt.Champaka acquired the said property by way of succession. The petitioner's father-Veerahanumaiah and his first son Hanumantharayappa were jointly enjoying remaining extent of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.2/2. Later, with an understanding between Hanumantaiah, S/o Hanumaiah and Veerahanumanthaiah, wherein Hanumanthaiah, gave up his right, title and interest in the said Sy.No.2/2 in the entire extent of 1 acre 30 guntas, after taking alternative land as his share in Sy. No.153 of Arashinakunte village. In pursuance to the 4 settlement and exchange between Veerahanumaiah and Hanumanthaiah, the revenue records in respect of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.2/2 was entered in the name of Veerhanumaiah and after the demise of the said Veerahanumaiah, the said 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.2/2 devolved on to Hanumantharayappa who is brother of the petitioner and to the petitioner. Since the petitioner and his brother had not entered into any partition or arrangement, the revenue records with respect to the entire extent of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No. 2/2 was entered in the name of the petitioner's brother Hanumantharayappa in the year 1995-96.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that, petitioner and his brother-Hanumantharayappa entered into an oral agreement wherein it was agreed and understood that, the petitioner shall retain an extent of 1 acre and said Hanumantharayappa shall take an extent of 30 guntas in the said Sy.No.2/2. Both were in enjoyment 5 of their respective properties. When things stood thus, the 4th respondent approached the 3rd respondent to enter his name in the mutation register in respect of the said property, on the basis of the forged sale deed dated 18.04.2001 said to have been executed by Hanumantharayappa, who is the brother of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, based on the report of the Revenue Inspector, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru Rural District, by the Order dated 04.02.2002, erroneously proceeded to enter the name of the 4th respondent in respect of the said property, without giving notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner approached the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, who, after hearing both the parties, by the Order dated 12.02.2018, set- aside the Order passed by the Tahsildar and the mutation entry and in M.R.No.3/2001-02 in respect of land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.2/2 situated at Narasapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, 6 Bengaluru Rural District. The 4th respondent herein was directed to establish his right over the land in question before the competent Civil Court.
4. Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the 4th respondent herein filed Revision Petition No.102/2018 before the Deputy Commissioner, who after hearing both the parties, by the impugned Order 18.06.2019, allowed the Revision Petition and set-aside the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed the Tahsildar to restore the entries in respect of Sy.No.2/2 measuring 1 acre in the name of the 4th respondent herein and also directed to make entry that the land has been converted for non agricultural residential purpose. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.
7
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Sri Chethan B.R. advocate for Sri Shivakumar N, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that the impugned Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and cannot be sustained. He further contended that as per the oral partition between the petitioner and his brother, 1 acre was allotted to the petitioner and 30 guntas to his brother. The said fact has not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner has already filed O.S.No.222/2014 in respect of the very property, for the relief of declaration and injunction and the said suit is still pending adjudication. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by allowing the writ petition.
8
7. Per contra, Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate, on taking notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3, sought to justify the impugned Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and contended that admittedly, the petitioner's brother and his family members executed sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent on 18.04.2001. Based on the said registered sale deed, the jurisdictional Tahsildar, as long back as on 22.03.2003 entered the name of the 4th respondent as owner of the land in the mutation register and the revenue records. Subsequently, conversion order also came to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 24.06.2014. The Deputy Commissioner, rightly observed that revenue authorities have no authority to set-aside the entry made in respect of converted lands. He further contended that in O.S. No.222/2014 filed for injunction, initially, temporary injunction was granted. Later, on the application filed 9 by the 4th respondent herein, the injunction was vacated and that was subject matter of M.A.No.9/2007. The same is also pending. Therefore, he submits that since the petitioner is before the Trial Court seeking the relief of declaration of title, the Deputy Commissioner is justified in passing the impugned order and therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the material on record it clearly indicates that the petitioner and his brother and daughters executed consent deed to sell the property and accordingly, sale deed dated 18.04.2001 came to be executed. Based on the said registered sale deed, mutation also came to be entered by the jurisdictional Tahsildar. It is also not in dispute that the purchaser of the land from the brother of the petitioner also obtained conversion order from the Deputy Commissioner on 24.06.2014, converting the land from agricultural 10 purpose to non agricultural residential purpose. The said conversion order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has reached finality. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Assistant Commissioner against the mutation entry made in the name of the purchaser by the Tahsildar in the year 2017 after the land was converted from agricultural purpose to non agricultural residential purpose. The Assistant Commissioner, by the Order dated 12.02.2018, set-aside the order passed by the Tahsildar to an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.2/2 considering the statement made by the present petitioner that there was oral partition between the parties and recorded a finding that the shares were divided.
9. The material on record clearly depicts that being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the 4th respondent filed Revision Petition 11 before the Deputy Commissioner, who, after considering the entire material on record and the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, recorded a finding that the registered sale deed dated 18.04.2001 executed by Hanumantharayappa, his brothers and daughters in favour of Respondent No.4 has reached finality and the mutation also came to be entered in the name of the purchaser. Subsequently, the land was converted on 24.06.2014 from agricultural purpose to non agricultural residential purpose. Unless and until the sale deed is set-aside, the revenue authorities have no power to restore the entries in the name of the petitioner after conversion order was made. He also recorded a finding that the present petitioner already filed O.S.No.222/2014 for the relief of declaration and injunction and the same is pending for adjudication and it is for the petitioner to avail the remedy, in accordance with law.
12
10. The material on record clearly depicts that admittedly the sale deed dated 18.04.2001 executed by Hanumantharayappa, brothers and sisters in favour of the 4th respondent is subject matter of O.S.No.222/ 2014 filed by the present petitioner for declaration of title and injunction. It is also not in dispute that injunction order which came to be vacated on the application filed by the 4th respondent, is subject matter of M.A.No.9/2007 which is also pending.
11. Since the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court to establish his right, title and interest in respect of the property in question, the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is always subject to the result of the suit. Admittedly, the 4th respondent is party in the said suit.
12. In view of the above, the impugned Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be interfered by this Court, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 13 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the parties have already approached the Civil Court by filing original suit, any decree to be passed by the Civil Court is not only binding on the parties, but also binding on the revenue authorities. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
13. However, it is needless to observe that it is always open for the petitioner to establish his right, and the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner shall not come in the way of the petitioner to establish his rights, independently, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm