Karnataka High Court
Sugamma W/O Tayappa vs The Government Of Karnataka And Ors on 12 October, 2022
Author: R. Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.201745/2021 (KLR-RR-SUR)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.201752/2021 (KLR-RR-SUR)
WRIT PETITION NO.201753/2021 (KLR-RR-SUR)
IN W.P.NO.201745/2021
BETWEEN:
SUGAMMA W/O TAYAPPA
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O GANJALLI VILLAGE, TQ. RAICHUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR SUB DIVISION, RAICHUR,
2
DISTRICT RAICHUR-584101.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
RAICHUR TALUKA, RAICHUR-584 101.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
RAICHUR TALUKA, RAICHUR-584101.
5. THIMMAYYA S/O THIMMAYYA
REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.,
A) BASAVARAJ S/O THIMMAYYA
B) MARAMMA D/O THIMMAYYA
C) HANUMANTHU S/O THIMMAYYA
D) RANGAMMA D/O THIMMAYYA
E) ANJANEYA S/O THIMMAYYA
F) THIMMAPPA WALEKAR
S/O THIMMAPPA
ALL R/O AT EKLASPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. RAICHUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN,
ADVOCATE FOR C/R5(A) TO 5(F))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.06.2021
PASSED IN RRT APPEAL NO.48/2018 PASSED BY SECOND
3
RESPONDENT HEREIN, BY ORDERING MUTATION IN THE
NAME OF LEGAL HEIR OF FIFTH RESPONDENT, IN
RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.156/3, 156/4 AND
405/1 OF EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR AT
ANNEXURE-K.
IN W.P.NO.201752/2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. GANGAMMA W/O SANNA BADEPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT EKLASPUR VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR-584102.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ PATIL &
SRI KIRAN V. RON, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR SUB DIVISION,
RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR-584101.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
RAICHUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT,
RAICHUR-584101.
4
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
RAICHUR,
RAICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT,
RAICHUR-584101.
5. THIMMAYYA S/O THIMMAYYA
RESIDING AT EKLASPUR VILLAGE,
RAICHUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT,
RAICHUR-584102,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.,
A) BASAVARAJ S/O THIMMAYYA
B) MARAMMA D/O THIMMAYYA
C) HANUMANTHU S/O THIMMAYYA
D) RANGAMMA D/O THIMMAYYA
E) ANJANEYA S/O THIMMAYYA
F) THIMMPPA WALEKAR S/O THIMMAPPA
ALL RESIDING AT EKLASPUR VILLAGE,
RAICHUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT,
RAICHUR-584102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR
C/R5(A) TO 5(F))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.06.2021
PASSED IN RRT APPEAL NO.50/2018 BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER RAICHUR, THE SECOND RESPONDENT
5
HEREIN, IN ORDERING MUTATION IN THE NAME OF LEGAL
HEIRS OF FIFTH RESPONDENT, IN RESPECT OF THE LAND
BEARING SY.NO.156/2 SITUATED IN EKLASPUR VILLAGE,
RAICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A.
IN W.P.NO.201753/2021
BETWEEN:
AKKAMMA W/O DODDA BADENNA
@ BADEPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O YARAMARUS VILLAGE, TQ. RAICHUR
DIST. RAICHUR-584101
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR SUB DIVISION, RAICHUR,
DISTRICT RAICHUR-584101
3. THE TAHSILDAR
RAICHUR TALUKA, RAICHUR-584010
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
6
RAICHUR TALUKA, RAICHUR-584101
5. SRI THIMMAYYA S/O THIMMAYYA
REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.,
A. BASAVARAJ S/O THIMMAYYA
B. MARAMMA D/O THIMMAYYA
C. HANUMANTHU S/O THIMMAYYA
D. RANGAMMA D/O THIMMAYYA
E. ANJANEYA S/O THIMMAYYA
F. THIMMAPPA WALEKAR S/O TIHIMMAPPA
ALL ARE R/O AT EKLASPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. RAICHUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584102
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE
FOR C/R5(A) TO 5(F))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.06.2021
PASSED IN RRT APPEAL NO.49/2018 PASSED BY SECOND
RESPONDENT HEREIN, BY ORDERING MUTATION IN THE
NAME OF LEGAL HEIR OF FIFTH RESPONDENT, IN
RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.156/1 AND 156/5
OF EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR, AT
ANNEXURE-L.
7
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
All these writ petitions arise out of common order originally passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur Sub-Division, Raichur, in RRT Appeal Nos.50/2018, 48/2018 and 49/2018.
2. It is not disputed that the contesting respondents - legal representatives of Sri Thimmayya approached the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in appeals bearing RRT Nos.50/2018, 48/2018 and 49/2018 calling in question the mutation entries made in MR No.18/1970 and MR No.39/1993-1994. The main contention of the petitioners is that although an application for condonation of delay was said to have been filed by legal representatives of Sri Thimmayya, 8 nevertheless, no orders have been passed by the Assistant Commissioner condoning the delay of nearly 48 years, having regard to the original mutation entry made in the year 1970 and therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is without jurisdiction.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(f) submits that these writ petitions are not maintainable for the simple fact that an alternative and efficacious remedy is available for the petitioners in the form of a revision before the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 136(3) of the Act. Moreover, it is submitted that revision petitions were in fact filed at the hands of the petitioners herein before the Deputy Commissioner on 16.07.2021 and thereafter, these writ petitions were filed on 30.07.2021, 02.08.2021 and 03.08.2021, without disclosing the fact that revision petitions were filed before the Deputy Commissioner. After obtaining 9 an interim order at the hands of this Court, the petitioners have once again gone before the Deputy Commissioner, filed a memo on 29.11.2021 seeking leave of the Deputy Commissioner to withdraw the revision petitions. The Deputy Commissioner proceeded to dismiss the revision petitions as withdrawn by order dated 16.12.2021. Learned counsel therefore submits that the writ petitioners do not deserve any relief at the hands of this Court and on the other hand, the writ petitions may be dismissed by imposing exemplary costs on the petitioners.
4. Having regard to the submissions made at the bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conduct of the petitioners in not disclosing the relevant facts before this Court which would have bearing on the matter would render the writ petitions to be rejected. However, liberty should be reserved to the petitioners to once again approach the Deputy Commissioner by filing 10 revision petitions in accordance with law. If such revision petitions are filed, the Deputy Commissioner shall take note of the time spent by the petitioners before this Court and consider the revision petitions on merits and pass necessary orders, including passing interim orders of stay in respect of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
5. Consequently, without stating anything regarding the merits of the matter, these writ petitions are dismissed while reserving liberty to the petitioners to file revision petitions before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner shall also take note of the observations made hereinabove.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*