Karnataka High Court
Sri Munireddy vs Smt Venkatalakshmamma on 13 March, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB
WA No. 292 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUNIREDDY,
S/O LATE RANGAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION,
R/S AT KATHIBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELDUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA,
by PRABHAKAR W/O LATE R. VENKATA REDDY,
SWETHA
KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
Location: High AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION,
Court of R/AT KATHIBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE,
Karnataka
YELDUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138.
2. SRI. K. V. SRIRAM REDDY,
S/O LATE R VENKATA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION,
R/AT KATHIBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELDUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB
WA No. 292 of 2024
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR - 563 101.
5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR SUB DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563 101.
6. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,
NADAKACHERI, YELDUR VILLAGE,
AND HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138.
7. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
YELDUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS
AND a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2024 PASSED BY THE
HONBLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.
29347/2023 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. b) GRANT ANY OTHER SUCH RELIEF/s
AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, CHIEF
JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB
WA No. 292 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr. Gowthamdev C. Ullal for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. V. Vinod Reddy for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.3 to 7.
2. The appellant is original respondent No.6 who has preferred this writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 22.01.2024, thereby learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the original petitioners and set aside the orders dated 13.07.2023 and 25.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively.
2.2 The said orders were passed under Section 136(2) and under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In those appellate and revisional proceedings respectively, the competent authorities set aside the mutation entry in M.R.No.163-19/1995-96 made in favour of the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB WA No. 292 of 2024 petitioners in respect of the land bearing Survey No.229 admeasuring 4 acres and 39 guntas, situated at Yedururu Village, Yeldur Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk. Also called in question was the subsequent mutation entry made in the year 2013 which was M.R.No.H9/2013-14. They are the entries passed by the Tahsildar as back in the year 1995 and 2013.
3. The petitioners prayed in the writ petition to set aside the aforementioned orders dated 13.07.2023 passed in R.A. No. 677 of 2017 by the Assistant Commissioner and the order dated 25.10.2023 passed in R.A.P. No.98 of 2023 which was passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
3.1 It was case of the petitioners, inter alia, in the writ petition that the property in question was originally owned by one Ranga Reddy who had five sons and a daughter. It was stated that there is an oral partition effected in lifetime of the said Ranga Reddy and Survey No.229 in question gone to the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB WA No. 292 of 2024 share of R.Venkata Reddy. The petitioners were the heirs of the said R.Venkata Reddy who died.
3.2 It was their further case that as per the said partition, the parcels of land belonging to Ranga Reddy had gone to the respective shares of the sons, became absolute properties of his sons and all the sharers enjoyed the property in capacity of absolute owners thereof. Upon partition of the properties, the said Rangareddy moved an application before the competent authorities to register mutation and khata in their respective names. Accordingly, the entry came to be mutated on 26.05.1995 in favour of the petitioners. It was stated that the petitioners thereafter paid revenue to the government also and raised mango plantation in the above said two survey numbers.
3.3 It was further stated by the petitioners that in the year 1998, respondent No.6-R.Munireddy and his brothers jointly sold the properties bearing Survey No.228/1 and others and in -6- NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB WA No. 292 of 2024 the registered sale deed, it was inter alia recited that the properties bearing Survey Nos.229 and 224 of Yedururu Village, which are the subject matter of properties, belonged to the petitioners and that they existed on the eastern side. It was further stated that another sale deed dated 19.08.2004 was also executed by the very respondent No.6, the ownership of the land bearing Survey Nos.229 and 224 was acknowledged. These aspects, it was submitted, made it clear that respondent No.6 was aware of the ownership of the land of the petitioners and the mutation entries effected in respect thereof.
3.4 It was also mentioned by the petitioners that during the lifetime of the said R.Venkata Reddy-father, both the petitioners borrowed agricultural loan from the State Bank of Mysore by mortgaging Survey Nos.229 and 224 and developed mango plantation in both the properties. It was stated that the mortgage deed in favour of the Bank was -7- NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB WA No. 292 of 2024 executed on 05.03.2009 covering both the properties. R. Venkata Reddy passed away on 18.08.2013. 3.5 It was next stated that thereafter, taking advantage of the ignorance and innocence of the petitioners, respondent No.6 created certain fabricated the documents pertaining to Survey No.229 and filed appeal before respondent No.3 in the year 2017 against the order passed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 26.05.1995 mutating the entry in respect of the said Survey No.229. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, as stated above, accepted the case of respondent No.6 to cancel the mutation, which compelled the petitioners to file the writ petition.
4. The learned advocates of both the sides canvassed same contentions to further their respective cases, as were advanced before learned Single Judge.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB WA No. 292 of 2024
5. While allowing the writ petition, one of the factual aspects considered and observed by learned Single Judge is that respondent No.5 has already instituted Original Suit No.29 of 2019 in which the petitioners are made parties as defendants. In that suit, a declaration is prayed for that the plaintiff-respondent No.5 herein was the absolute owner of the land and interim prayer for permanent injunction is also prayed for. It was thus considered by learned Single Judge that the parties are already litigating before the Civil Court in respect of their claim over the property in question. 5.1 A conspicuous aspect is that the mutation entry which was sought to be called in question by respondent No.6 before the revenue authorities was made in the year 1995-96. It was on the basis of the partition effected amongst the sons by the father-R.Venkata Reddy, now deceased, the challenge to the entry before the Assistant Commissioner was raised in the year 2017. Thus, it was after a period of 21 years that respondent No.6 sought to question the mutation entry. Even -9- NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB WA No. 292 of 2024 after passage of such unreasonable time, the Assistant Commissioner entertained the prayer for setting aside of the mutation entry which was in turn confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The delay is too long to be countenanced. 5.2 This situation presently obtained is that respondent No.6 has already approached the competent Civil Court seeking a declaration and the said suit proceedings are pending. The titular rights in respect of the property could only be decided by the civil court. When such proceedings are pending, it has to take its own course in accordance with law and that the mutation entry would be guided by the final outcome of the suit proceedings.
5.3. Learned Single Judge is entirely justified in observing that if respondent No.6 is able to secure a declaration from the civil court, he will be entitled to have his name entered in the revenue records. In the interregnum, as rightly held, it is not permissible for respondent No.6 to change the status of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB WA No. 292 of 2024 entries which were otherwise duly recorded before long 21 years. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, while dealing with the appeal and the revision respectively, misdirected themselves in setting aside the mutation entry which was made as back as in the year 1995-96, in absence of any acceptable explanation regarding passage of time and delay and laches.
5.4 In any view, there was nothing irregular or illegal in the mutation entry which was entered initially in the year 1995-96 and again in the year 2013 reflecting the mort transaction when it was backed by the plea of the partition and the transaction of the bank undertaken by the petitioners in whose favour the property fell. The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were not justified in law and they are only to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the judgment and order of learned Single Judge is upheld. The direction passed by learned Single
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:10210-DB WA No. 292 of 2024 Judge to restore the mutation entries shall be acted upon. The challenge to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge fails. The present appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34