Karnataka High Court
Shri.Appasaheb S/O Satagouda Patil vs Shri. Adagonda @ Manoj S/O Payagonda ... on 26 July, 2021
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.P.No.114746/2015 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Between
Shri. Appasaheb, S/o Satagouda Patil,
Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Pangire (A)-591201,
Tq: Chikodi, Dist: Belagavi. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. Akshay A.Katti, Advocate)
And
1. Shri. Adagonda @ Manoj,
S/o Payagonda Patil,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Pangire (A)-591201,
Tq: Chikodi, Dist: Belagavi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Belagavi, D.C. Compound,
Belagavi-590001.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Chikodi Sub-Division,
Chikodi-591201, Dist: Belagavi.
4. Revenue Inspector,
Nipani-591237, Tq: Chikodi,
Dist: Belagavi. ...Respondents
(By Sri. S.S.Bawakhan, Advocate for R1
Sri. H.K.Basavaraj, Addl. Govt. Advocate for R2 to R4)
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
03.12.2015 passed by the second respondent, Deputy
Commissioner, Belagavi, produced at Annexure-J.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing 'B'
Group, this day the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. Brief facts of the case that would be necessary for the purpose of the disposal of this case are: The land bearing R.S.No.113/2A measuring 2 acres 10 guntas situated at Akkol village, Chikodi Taluka, Belagavi District, was purchased by the petitioner and his brother Sri. Payagonda Patil under a registered sale deed dated 13.05.1981. Subsequent to the said purchase, the entries in respect of the said land was transferred in the name of the petitioner and his brother Sri. Payagonda Patil. The 1st respondent is the son of Sri. Payagonda Patil. Subsequent to the death of Sri. Payagonda Patil, the 1st respondent succeeded to the share of Sri. Paygonda Patil in the lands in dispute by inheritance. The 1st respondent made an 3 application before the Revenue Inspector, Nipani to change the entries in respect of the land in dispute to the entire extent in his name stating that the petitioner herein had executed a relinquishment deed dated 25.10.2012, and on the basis of said application made by the 1st respondent, the entries in respect of the entire extent of land in question was changed in the name of the 1st respondent vide order dated 22.12.2012. The said order was questioned by the petitioner herein before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), contending that he had not executed any relinquishment deed in favour of the 1st respondent herein and the said relinquishment deed, on the basis of which the 4th respondent has changed the entries in respect of the land in question in favour of the 1st respondent, is an unregistered document. He also contended that he had no notice from the 4th respondent before the change of entries in respect of the land in question entirely in the name of the 1st respondent herein. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said appeal vide his order dated 30.03.2015 which was challenged by the 1st respondent herein before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act and the Deputy Commissioner, 4 vide his order dated 03.12.2015 allowed the revision petition filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 136(3) of the Act and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in allowing the revision petition for the reason that the 4th respondent-Revenue Inspector has changed the revenue entries in respect of the land in question in favour of the 1st respondent herein on the basis of an unregistered relinquishment deed which is said to have been executed by the petitioner herein. He submits that the petitioner has disputed the very execution of the said document and there was no notice from the 4th respondent before changing the entries in favour of the 1st respondent vide order dated 22.12.2012.
4. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioner had executed relinquishment deed in favour of the 1st respondent herein after receiving consideration with regard to the value of the property. He submits that the petitioner is a 5 close relative of the 1st respondent and he had consented before the 4th respondent for change of revenue entries and it is on his consent, the entries have been changed in favour of the 1st respondent and therefore, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the same.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also argued opposing the prayer made in the writ petition.
6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent herein is an unregistered document. It is settled principle of law that transfer of title in respect of immoveable property for consideration can be done only by a registered document. The 4th respondent-Revenue Inspector has, therefore, erred in transferring entries in respect of the land in question in favour of the 1st respondent on the basis of an unregistered document alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner has disputed the very execution of the said document. Though it is contended by the learned 6 counsel for the 1st respondent that change of revenue entries was made with the consent of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner herein had consented before the 4th respondent for changing the entries in respect of the land in question in favour of the 1st respondent. It is in this background, the Assistant Commissioner had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and set aside the order passed by the 4th respondent. Without properly appreciating the facts of the case, the Deputy Commissioner has erroneously set aside the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. I am of the considered opinion that since the 4th respondent herein had transferred the revenue entries in respect of the immoveable property in favour of the 1st respondent on the basis of an unregistered relinquishment deed, the said order passed by the 4th respondent was legally unsustainable and the Assistant Commissioner had rightly set aside the said order. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner exercising his jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Act whereby he has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is liable to be quashed.
7
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner in No.RB/RTA-01/2015-16 allowing the revision petition filed under Section 136(3) by the 1st respondent is set aside and the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is restored on file.
The respective parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court and agitate their rights, and the entries made in respect of the land in question shall be subject to the decree passed in such civil suit.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms