Karnataka High Court
Muniswamappa S/O Late Doddannaiah vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 17 January, 2017
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP.13333/2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.13333/2009 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. Muniswamappa,
Dead by L.Rs.
1(a) M.Shivashankar,
s/o late Muniswamappa,
aged about 57 years,
No.17, 2nd Cross, Brindavan Layout,
Kaval Byrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 032.
1(b) M.Muniraju,
Since dead by L.Rs.,
(i) Smt.Shantamma
W/o late Muniraju
aged about 48 years
(ii) Sri Arun M.,
S/o late Muniraju,
aged about 28 years
(iii) Sri Chetan M.,
S/o late Muniraju,
aged about 25 years
(iv) Smt.Roopa M.,
D/o late Muniraju,
Aged about 29 years
All are r/at no.21,
Muniswamappa Layout,
WP.13333/2009
2
1st Main Road, Kaval Byrasandra,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 32.
1(c) M.Chowdappa,
s/o late Muniswamappa,
aged about 53 years
No.43, 'Nandika'
Indrajit Sahney layout,
Shamapura Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore 45.
1(d) B.M.Ramesh,
s/o late Muniswamappa,
aged about 51 years,
No.21, 1st Main Road,
Muniswamappa Garden,
Kaval Byrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 32.
1(e) M.Srinivas
s/o late Muniswamappa,
aged about 39 years
No.46/3, 1st Main Road,
Muniswamappa Garden,
Kaval Byrasandra, R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 32. ... PETITIONERS
(Amended v/c/o dt.13.8.2009)
(By Sri Papi Reddy, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Special Deputy Commissiner,
Bangalore Urban District,
Bangalore - 09.
2. The Asst.Commissioner,
Bangalore North Sub-Division,
Podium Block, V.V.Tower,
Bangalore 01.
WP.13333/2009
3
3. The Tahsildar,
Bangalore East Taluk,
K.R.Puram, Bangalore.
4. Mariyappa
s/o late Poojappa,
aged about 52 years,
5. Govindaraju
s/o late Poojappa,
aged about 48 years
6. Venkatesh
s/o late Poojappa
aged about 46 years
7. Narayanaswamy
s/o late Poojappa
aged about 38 years,
Resp.4 to 7 are the legal representatives of
R8 - Smt.Muniyamma and are
r/at No.1400, 5th Cross,
Muninagappa layout,
Kaval Byrasandra,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 32.
8. Smt.Muniyamma
w/o late Poojappa
(since dead, ... RESPONDENTS
(Amended v/c/o dt...4.12.2012)
(By Sri T.S.Mahantesh, AGA for R1-R3;
Sri B.Pape Gowda, Adv. for R4-47)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned orders
dt.28.12.07 vide Annexure-J passed by R2, in Case
No.RA.534/05-06 and the impugned order at Annexure-K
dt.4.5.2009, passed by R1, in Rev.Petn.207/07-08 and etc.
WP.13333/2009
4
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
1. A short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the order of remand dated 28.12.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.534/2005-06 confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by dismissing Revision Petition No.207/2007-08 filed by Muniswamappa/deceased petitioner vide order dated 04.05.2009 suffers from any illegality so as to warrant interference in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. A mutation entry was effected in the name of Muniswamappa and his five sons vide order dated 04.04.2006 in RRT/CR/1445/05-06. The mutation entry was the result of partition that had taken place between the members of the family of Muniswamappa. According to petitioners, Muniswamappa had purchased land measuring 3 acres, comprised in Sy.No.13/8, new number 55/P1 from the father of respondents 4 to 8 herein vide Sale Deed dated 25.04.1974. At that time, survey number assigned to the land was 13/8; but subsequently the land was assigned new number 55/P1 of WP.13333/2009 5 Chikka Gubbi Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru District. Therefore, at the time when mutation entry was effected during the year 2006 consequent upon the partition between the members of the family, survey number was shown as 55/P1.
3. However, respondents 4 to 8 herein challenged the mutation entry before the Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act contending inter alia that Sy.No.55/P1 belonged to them and petitioners did not have any right over the same. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 28.12.2007 remanded the matter to the Tahsildar directing him to hear both parties and pass appropriate orders by examining whether the land bearing Sy.No.13/8 purchased by Muniswamappa son of late Doddannaiah on 25.04.1974 was assigned new number as 55/P1. This order was challenged by Muniswamappa before the Deputy Commissioner by filing a Revision Petition. Revision Petition has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner observing that in view of the dispute raised by respondents 4 to 8 herein stating that the land in Sy.No.13/8 and Sy.No.55/P1 were quite different, it was necessary to examine whether land Sy.No.13/8 was assigned new Sy.No.55/P1.
WP.13333/20096
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that effect of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is to virtually nullify the mutation entry effected in favour of Muniswamappa, the deceased petitioner consequent upon the registered Sale Deed dated 25.04.1974. It is his submission that after lapse of 30 years, respondents 4 to 8 herein had challenged the same before the Assistant Commissioner and both the authorities have overlooked the issue regarding delay in approaching them.
5. These contentions are refuted by counsel for respondents 4 to 8 as also learned Additional Government Advocate.
6. Upon hearing the counsel for both parties, I find that the challenge before the Assistant Commissioner was not to the mutation entry effected based on the Sale Deed dated 24.04.1974. The said mutation entry has not been set aside, nor was there any challenge to the same. What has been set aside is the mutation entry effected based on the partition that had taken place between the members of the family of petitioners. The said mutation entry was effected in the year 2006 and the appeal was also filed before the Assistant WP.13333/2009 7 Commissioner in the year 2006. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have found that it was necessary for the Tahsildar to first examine whether new Sy. number 55/P1 was assigned to the old Sy.No.13/8, so that petitioners could seek entries in the revenue record in respect of Sy.No.55/P1 based on the alleged partition. I do not find any illegality in this order. The Tahsildar has to hear both parties and record his findings in connection with the said issue as to whether Sy.No.13/8 was assigned new Sy.No.55/P1 of Chikkagubbi Village, Bidarahalli Hobli and both are one and the same. Unless this issue is addressed, the controversy cannot be put at rest between the parties.
7. Hence, with the above observations the Writ Petition is disposed of. The Tahsildar is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS