Karnataka High Court
Venkatrao S/O. Annasa Naik vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 December, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.101577/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Between
Venkatrao, S/o Annasaheb Naik,
Occ: Agriculture & Advocate,
Aged about 49 years,
R/o Anagawadi, Taluk: Bilagi,
Bagalkot district-587116. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. Dayanand Bandi, Advocate)
And
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bagalkot District,
Bagalkot-587101.
2. The Tashildar, Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot-587116.
3. Smt. Akkubai,
W/o Saddanaik Patil,
Aged about 52 years,
Occ: Housewife,
R/o Angadi Oni Mudalagi,
Taluk Mudalagi,
Dist: Belgagavi-591312. ...Respondents
(By Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, HCGP for R1 & R2
Shri. Rajshekhar Gunjall, Advocate for R3)
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari and quash the impugned order 12.11.2020 passed
by respondent No.1 in Revision petition No.32/2019 vide
Annexure-H and consequently quash the order 31.10.2018
passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-G and direct
respondent nos.1 & 2 to restore the entries in record of rights
prior to passing of the impugned order at Annexure-G.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.155/2 measuring 9.22 acres situated at Anagawadi Village, Bilagi Taluk, by virtue of a comprise decree executed between him and respondent No.3. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records concerned in respect of the land in question.
2. When things stood thus, respondent No.3 filed an application with the Tahsildar who forwarded the same to respondent No.1 for consideration. Petitioner states that respondent No.1, without issuing notice to him, has set aside the mutation entry in his favour and restored the name of his 3 deceased father and respondent No.3. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1, without issuing notice to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order which is in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that right of the petitioner accrued under the compromise decree has extinguished in view of the order passed by this Court setting aside the compromise decree alleged to have been executed between petitioner and respondent No.3.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State would reiterate the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.3.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
4
7. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the record of rights by virtue of the compromise decree executed between petitioner and respondent No.3. However, the said compromise decree was declared as null and void by this Court. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has passed the order setting aside the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner and restored the name of the deceased father of the petitioner and respondent No.3 subject to the outcome of O.S. No.263/2005.
8. Though notice is not issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the rights of the petitioner, admittedly, stands extinguished by virtue of the order passed by this Court declaring the compromise decree as null and void and it would be a empty formality if the mater is remitted to respondent No.1. Since the suit for partition and separate possession is pending consideration between the petitioner and respondent No.3, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner even though no notice was issued by respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order. I do not find any 5 illegality in the order passed by respondent No.1. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A. No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms