Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Commissioner vs Sri Krishnappa S on 9 November, 2018
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
W.A.NO.141/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.
2. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
NANDI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK-562101
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.
... APPELLANTS
(By Mr. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S
S/O SOLALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O KOLAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.
Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016
The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.
2/12
2. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
D/O LATE MALIGE BYRAPPA
AGEDA BOUT 86 YEARS
W/O CHIKKEGOWDA
R/O BENDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560090.
3. SMT. DODDAPILLAMMA
D/O LATE MALLIGE BYRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRs.
A) SRI. MARIGWODA
S/O LATE DODDAPILLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
B) SRI. MUNEGOWDA
S/O LATE DODDAPILLAMMA
AGED 46 YEARS.
C) SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O LATE DODDAPILLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
D) SRI RAVI
S/O LATE DODDAPILLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
E) SRI RAJU
S/O LATE DODDAPILLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
F) SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
D/O LATE DODDAPILLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
G) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE DODDAPILLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016
The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.
3/12
H) SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE DODDAPILLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
I) SMT. KAVERAMMA
D/O LATE DODDAPILLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
(ALL ARE R/AT. TILAGERE VILLAGE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560090)
4. SMT. CHIKKAPILLAMMA
D/O LATE MALLIGE BYRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LR.
A) SMT. SUVARNA
D/O LATE MALLIGE BYRAPPA
W/O MANJUNATH, A/A 41 YEARS
R/AT. CHOKKANAHALLI
BAGALURU HOBLI
YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560090.
5. SMT. CHANNAMMA
D/O LATE MALIGE BYRAPPA
W/O R.A. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
R/AT. RAJAGHATTA VILLAGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560090.
6. SRI. B. RAMAIAH
S/O LATE MALIGE BYRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
A) SMT. CHANDRAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
W/O ARUN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT. HUNASEMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016
The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.
4/12
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560090.
B) SMT. SHYLAJA
D/O LATE B. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT. DODDAMARALI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.
C) SRI. BYREGOWDA
S/O LATE B. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT. DODDAMARALI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.
7. SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
8. SRI. N. VENKATESH
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS No.7 & 8 HEREIN ARE
R/AT. DODDAMARALI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Mr. K.N. NITISH, ADV., FOR
Mr. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV., FOR R1
Mr. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADV., FOR R7 & R8
R3(A), R3(C), R3(D), R3(E), R4(A), R5, R6(C)
SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.14549/2010 DATED
14/08/2015 & ETC.
Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016
The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.
5/12
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
Dr.VINEET KOTHARI J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr. S.S. Mahendra, AGA for Appellants Mr. K.N. Nitish, Adv. for Mr. K.V. Narasimhan, Adv. for R1 Mr. T. Seshagiri Rao, Adv. for R7 & R8 The appellants-Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Inspector and Deputy Commissioner have filed the present intra Court appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.08.2015 allowing the W.P.No.14549/2010 filed by the Respondent No.1- Krishnappa S. S/o Solalappa, imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- on the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner to be paid jointly by them as they chose to ignore the Decree in favour of the petitioner and changed the revenue entries in favour of the private respondents despite the Decree by the Civil Court in O.S.No.81/1980, which was upheld in further Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016 The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.
6/12 appeals in R.A.No.6/1993 and RSA 379/1996 upto this Court.
2. Allowing the writ petition of the petitioner on the basis of the Decree, the learned Single Judge held that the Deputy Commissioner having noticed the facts that there was a Decree in favour of the petitioner still chose to uphold the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 09.01.2006 and the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 09.04.2010 rejected the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner.
3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the petitioner imposing costs on both these authorities.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the Assistant Commissioner has filed this present intra Court appeal before us.
Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016 The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.
7/12
5. The relevant portions of the learned Single Judge is quoted below for ready reference:
"2. Respondents-3 to 6 by suppressing the judgment and decree in O.S.81/1980, RA.6/1993 and RSA 379/1996 filed an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Assistant Commissioner without arraigning petitioner as a party respondent, asserting to have acquired right, title and interest over the property in question as legatees under the Will of the deceased Malige Byrappa. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 9-1-2006 accepting the Will and as legatees, is said to have allowed the appeal and directed recording the name of respondents-3 to 6 in the revenue records.
3. On 6-3-2006, respondents-3 to 6, without disclosing the claim of petitioner, allegedly, executed and lodged for registration a sale deed conveying the said property for valuable consideration in favour of respondents-8 and 9. Even before the names of respondents-8 and 9 could be recorded in the revenue records, petitioner is said to have filed a revision petition under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act, Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016 The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.8/12
before the Deputy Commissioner, who, by order dated 9-4-2010, dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner without recording a finding over suppression of material facts of the judgment and decree in O.S.81/1980, R.A.6/1993 and R.S.A.379/1996.
4. In the meanwhile, petitioner instituted, OS 170/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Chikkaballapur for injunctory reliefs arraigning respondents-8 and 9 as defendants. So also, respondents-8 and 9 instituted O.S.416/2007 arraigning petitioner as defendant for declaration of title and that the judgment and decree in O.S.81/1980 was obtained by playing a fraud. In addition, one Smt. Swathi, D/o Lakshmamma, another daughter of Malige Byrappa is said to have instituted O.S.191/2009, before Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Chikkaballapura, for partition and separate possession of the aforesaid immovable property.
13. The Deputy Commissioner as noticed supra, having failed to apply his mind over allegation of suppression of relevant facts, by Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016 The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.9/12
respondents-3 to 6 though advanced by the petitioner in the revision petition, is also liable to pay costs of this proceedings.
14. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order dated 9-1-2006 of the Assistant Commissioner is quashed and the appeal dismissed. Sequentially, the order dated 9-4-2010 of the Deputy Commissioner in revision is quashed and the revision petition is allowed, entitling the petitioner to have his name restored forthwith in the revenue records in respect of land in question.
15. In the circumstances, cost is quantified at Rs.50,000/- payable by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner jointly, although, the State Government is directed to first pay the cost to the petitioner and recover the same from the said two officers."
6. Learned AGA Mr.S.S.Mahendra, appearing for the appellants submitted before us that the authorities below were misled by the private respondents on the basis of the Will under which they Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016 The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.
10/12 claimed to be the legatees and on the basis of their misrepresentation, the entries in the land records were changed. Therefore, the costs imposed by the learned Single Judge on both these authorities may be waived.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents however opposed these submissions made by the learned AGA appearing for the appellants.
8. Having heard the learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal filed by the Appellants-Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Inspector and Deputy Commissioner.
9. The Deputy Commissioner was well informed of the fact of existence of the Decree in favour of the writ petitioner and therefore, there was no occasion to ignore the binding Decree upheld upto the High Court, while changing the land revenue records in favour of the private Respondents on the basis of their claim made Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016 The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.
11/12 under the Will in question. These private Respondents are also said to be party to the Civil suit and therefore they were fully aware of the Decree passed against them. The authorities below ought to have at least given a notice to the Decree Holders instead of passing such order of change of revenue entries. The learned AGA was unable to rebut the fact that the Decree in favour of the present Respondent No.1, who was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge, duly existed in his favour. The only prayer made by the learned AGA is for waiver of the costs imposed on these authorities below.
10. We are not impressed with the said argument and the manner in which these authorities, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents, changed the entries in the Revenue Records contrary to the Decree passed in favour of the writ petitioner and which Decree was held upto the High Date of Judgment: 09-11-2018 W.A.No.141/2016 The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Vs. Sri. Krishnappa .S & Ors.
12/12 Court, the imposition of the costs on them is justified. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No further costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE TL