Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shiva @ Shivareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 13808 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 13808 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHIVA @ SHIVAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VENKATESHAPPA @ VENKATESHA REDDY,
R/O. KITHANDUR VILLAGE,
SUGATUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563 101.
Digitally signed by
GURURAJ D
Location: High 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Court of Karnataka KOLAR SUB DIVISION,
KOLAR-563 101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
MALUR TALUK,
MALUR-563 160.
5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SHAMANNA,
D/O. YELAGOWDA,
-2-
WP No. 13808 of 2022
6. SRI. M. S. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SHAMANNA,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6 ARE
R/O MYLANDAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-513 160.
7. SRI. BYRAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VENKATESHAPPA
@ VENKATESHA REDDY,
R/O. KITHANDUR VILLAGE,
SUGATUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 102.
8. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
9. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
RESPONDENTS NO.8 & 9 ARE
R/O AGRAHARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160.
10. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK-563160
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 & R10;
SRI. M.K.SHIVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 & R5;
NOTICE TO R7 TO R9 DISPENSED WITH DATED 04.08.2022)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 31.05.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 IN REV.PET NO.41/2020
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE R3
-3-
WP No. 13808 of 2022
IN R.A.NO.210/2015-16 DATED 21.11.2019 PRODUCED AS PER
ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned AGA takes notice for respondents no.1 to 4 and respondent no.10.
2. Learned counsel Sri. M.K. Shivaraju, has entered appearance for respondents no.5 and 6.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents no.7 to 9 are brothers of the petitioner and they are sailing with him. Therefore, learned counsel has filed a memo seeking dispensation of notice to respondents no.7 to 9.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 passed by respondent no.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District. Earlier respondents no.5 and 6 had approached Assistant Commissioner, in dispute bearing R.A.No.210/2015-16 invoking Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, calling in question the mutation entries made in MR No.6/1997-98 dated 19.09.1997. It is not -4- WP No. 13808 of 2022 in dispute that in terms of the said mutation entry, name of the petitioner was entered along with respondents no.5 and 6 in the land revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.19/2 of Agrahara village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur taluk. However, it was contended by the contesting respondents that the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.426/2003 before the I Addl. Civil Judge, Kolar, seeking partition and separate possession of the joint family properties and respondents no.5 and 6 were also defendants in the said suit. However, the land in question did not form part of suit schedule properties. It is submitted that the suit was decreed granting a share in favour of the petitioner. The Regular First Appeal filed by the contesting respondents was dismissed and consequently Regular Second Appeal was filed which is pending consideration before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents would submit that when admittedly the land in question did not form part of the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.426/2003, which was a suit filed for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties, then it is understood that the petitioner himself admits that this is not joint family property. It is therefore contended that the contesting respondents -5- WP No. 13808 of 2022 approached the Assistant Commissioner seeking deletion of the names of the petitioner from the land records, while maintaining the names of the respondents no.5 and 6 only in the land revenue records. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. However, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition and directed cancellation of the mutation entry in terms of M.R.No.6/1997-98.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, contesting respondents, learned AGA and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that even if the petitioner had not included the land in question in the suit schedule properties in the suit for partition, nevertheless, the contesting respondents have also failed to get a declaration that the land in question is not a joint family property and that it belongs exclusively to the contesting respondents. The said declaration could have been obtained by the contesting respondents by filing an application to include the lands in the Schedule or making counter claim in the suit. So long as there is no declaration by a competent Civil Court that the land in question does not belong to the petitioner, then the revenue authorities -6- WP No. 13808 of 2022 could not have cancelled the mutation entry made way back in the year 1997-98.
7. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg*