Karnataka High Court
Sri M M Lokendranath vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 1 June, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.27101/2013 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI.M.M.LOKENDRANATH,
S/O LATE K.MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT No.19, 15TH CROSS,
6TH 'B' MAIN, 100 FT RING ROAD,
IV PHASE, J.P.NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 078. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHARGAV.G. ADV. FOR C.R.GOPALASWAMY AND
ASSOCIATES, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560 059.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL-562106.
4. SRI RAMAIAH,
S/O LATE SRI MUNIHUCHAPPA,
MAJOR
2
R/O BUKKA SAGARA VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
PIN-562 106.
5. SRI.DODDAMUNIYAPPA
@ MUNIYAPPA
S/O SRI NAGAPPA,
MAJOR,
6. SRI.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
S/O SRI NAGAPPA,
MAJOR,
R-5 AND R-6 ARE R/AT NO.122,
3RD CROSS, RAJANNA LAYOUT,
BILEKAHALLI POST,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
R-4, R-5 AND R-6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.07.2011 PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDNT- SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE
REV.PET.No.29/2006-07 AND ORDER DATED 21.04.2006
PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT - ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER VIDE RA.(A)257/04-05 VIDE ANNEXURES-G
& H RESPECTIVELY, & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
1. On the basis of the registered Settlement Deed dated 11.12.2000, the revenue entry in respect of Sy.No.41 was mutated. The settlement deed was said to have been executed by Ramaiah, jointly in favour of Dodda Muniyappa and Chikka Muniyappa, who were his cousins.
2. Ramaiah, however, challenged the said order of mutation by filing an appeal in R.A. (A) No.257/2004-05 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner took the view that the mutation effected vide M.R. No.4/2003-04 on the basis of the settlement deed could not have been sustained, since a private complaint had been lodged by Ramaiah in respect of the Settlement Deed.
3. The two other parties to the settlement deed i.e., Dodda Muniyappa and Chikka Muniyappa along with the purchaser-M.M.Lokendranath, preferred a revision. The Special Deputy Commissioner found no reason to 4 entertain the revision and dismissed the same. It is against this dismissal of the revision, the present writ petition has been preferred.
4. Sri.Bhargav G., learned counsel for the petitioner, has filed a memo enclosing a copy of the judgment passed in O.S. No.1428 of 2006 (Old No.2783 of 2005). The said suit was filed by Ramaiah seeking for a declaration that the settlement deed dated 11.12.2000 was void ab initio and was liable to be cancelled. He had also sought for a declaration that the defendant i.e., Dodda Muniyappa and Chikka Muniyappa had no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.
5. The judgment indicates that the Trial court refused to accept the plea of Ramaiah that the Settlement Deed was void ab initio and the said suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed with costs.
6. In view of the fact that the challenge made to the Settlement Deed dated 11.12.2000 has been negatived 5 by the Civil Court, the orders of the revenue authorities based on the said Settlement Deed cannot be sustained. As a consequence, M.R. No.4/2003-04 which had been made on the basis of the settlement deed shall stand restored, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Civil Court in O.S. No.1428 of 2006.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK CT: SN