Karnataka High Court
Sri Y B Krishnappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 April, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14187
WP No. 8013 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 8013 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. Y. B. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE. MUNIBURUGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YAMALURU VILLAGE AND POST,
MARATHAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed
by JUANITA BANGALORE EAST SUB-DIVISION,
THEJESWINI K.G. ROAD, KANDHAYA BHAVANA,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE - 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
K.R. PURAM TALUK,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 036.
4. SMT. MUNIDASAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1186, RAJU COLONY,
YAMALURU VILLAGE AND POST,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14187
WP No. 8013 of 2024
MARATHAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 AND
SRI. B. R. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-A)
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:03.06.2022 PASSED IN
REVISION PETITION NO.15/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT BENGALURU AND THE ORDER DATED:14.12.2018
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER BENGALURU IN R A (BE) 145/2015-16, VIDE
ANNEXURE - L AND K RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in R.P.No.15/2019.
2. The undisputed disputed facts are that 4½ Guntas of land in Sy.No.43 of Yamaluru village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, which is now within the jurisdiction of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) was granted to Sri.Muniyappa, the father of the 4th respondent -3- NC: 2024:KHC:14187 WP No. 8013 of 2024 herein. It is the contention of the 4th respondent that Sri.Muniyappa had left behind a Will dated 20.02.1988 bequeathing the property in favour the 4th respondent, who is his daughter. Sri.Muniyappa died on 04.10.1992. One Smt.Munivenkatamma, who is said to be the estranged wife of Sri.Muniyappa got the mutation entries transferred in her name in terms of M.R.No.36/2004-05 dated 11.01.2005, on the basis of inheritance. The said Smt.Munivenkatamma also left behind a registered Will dated 16.11.2005 bequeathing property in favour of the petitioner, who is none other than Muniyappa's brother's son. This aspect of the matter is nevertheless, disputed by the 4th respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Will was got probated in P & SC.No.2/2013 before the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District on 24.11.2014. Consequent to the said probate obtained by the petitioner, the petitioner got the mutation transferred in his name in terms of M.R.H.8/2014-15 on 13.03.2015.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:14187 WP No. 8013 of 2024
3. The 4th respondent herein filed an Appeal before the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, calling in question the two mutation entries made in fvour of Smt.Munivenkatamma as well as the petitioner herein. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 14.12.2018 noticing that in a suit filed by the 4th respondent in O.S.No.6534/1996, the learned Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru, by a judgment and decree dated 01.03.2005 had injuncted the petitioner herein from interfering from the peaceful possession of the property in question and therefore the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to allow the Appeal while setting aside the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the Revision Petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was impermissible for the reveneu-authorities to sit in judgment over an order passed by the competent civil -5- NC: 2024:KHC:14187 WP No. 8013 of 2024 court. Learned Counsel submits that when the mutation entries were made in favour of the petitioner based on a probate granted by a competent court of law, the Assistant Commissioner could not have set aside the same unless the probate granted by the competent court was set aside in a manner known to law.
5. Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent seeks to submit that the property in question was earlier within the limits of H.A.Sanitary Board and the khatha was registered in the records of the Board. A construction was put up even earlier and the 4th respondent was in occupation of same and the khatha was registered in her name in the records of H.A.Sanitary Board. After the jurisdiction was vested with the BBMP, the khatha was continued in the records of the BBMP and therefore, by virtue of the order obtained by the petitioner herein at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner cannot be permitted to disturb the peaceful possession of the property in question, moreso, in the light of the judgment -6- NC: 2024:KHC:14187 WP No. 8013 of 2024 and decree passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.6534/1996.
6. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Assistant Commissioner, who was considering an Appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act, could not have sat in judgment over a probate granted by the competent court of law. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, liberty has been reserved in the order of probate itself that any person aggrieved of the probate granted to the petitioner is free to seek cancellation of the probate. However, the 4th respondent has not questioned the probate although it is within the knowledge of the 4th respondent. Therefore, unless and until the probate is got set aside in a manner known to law, the petitioner will be entitled to have his name continued in the land records.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban -7- NC: 2024:KHC:14187 WP No. 8013 of 2024 District in R.P.No.15/2019 and the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru in RA (BE) 145/2015-16, are hereby quashed and set aside. Needless to observe that merely because the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are set aside at the hands of this Court, that will not permit the petitioner to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property in question, since the 4th respondent has obtained a judgment and decree injuncting the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property in question.
8. Needless to also observe that the 4th respondent may proceed in accordance with law to get the probate obtained by the petitioner set aside in a manner known to law and thereafter, she may approach the revenue authorities to get the khatha changed in her name.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL