Karnataka High Court
Ramadasaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 23 March, 2023
-1-
WP No. 55576 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO. 55576 OF 2014 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAMADASAIAH
S/O. DHARMADASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O HARATHALU VILLAGE
KEREHALLI HOBLI
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 418.
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
SHIMOGA - 577 201.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAGAR SUB DIVISION
SAGAR - 577 401.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
HOSANAGARA TALUK
HOSANAGARA - 577 418.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
KEREHALLI HOBLI
HOSANAGARA TALUK - 577 418.
-2-
WP No. 55576 of 2014
5. MANJAPPA
S/O. PUTTASHETTY
MAJOR
6. PANIYAPPA
S/O. PUTTASHETTY
MAJOR
THE RESPONDENTS 5 & 6
ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND
RESIDENTS OF HARATHALU VILLAGE
KEREHALLI HOBLI
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 418.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAGASHREE.M.C, AGA FOR R1-4;
SRI. B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5-6)
THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD.28.4.2014 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN
R.MISC.NO.25/2012-13 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L AND THE
ORDER DATED 5.9.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, SAGAR SUB DIVISION, SAGAR IN
R.A.NO.84/98-99 AS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K TO WRIT
PETITION AND QUASH THE MUTATION ENTRY MADE ON
28.7.1997 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,
NADAKACHERI, KEREHALLIHOBLI IN M.R.NO.31/96-97
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS W.P. HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING AND RESERVED
ON 23.02.2023 AT THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE
KALABURAGI BENCH, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 55576 of 2014
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to issue writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the first respondent in R.MISC.No.25/2012-13 vide Annexure -L and also the order dated 05.09.2011 of the second respondent in R.A.No.84/1998-99 vide Annexure-K and also quash the mutation entry made on 28.07.1997 passed by the third respondent in MR.No.31/96-97 vide Annexure-J. Brief facts of the case:
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is the absolute owner and in possession of 3 acres of land bearing Sy.No.30 of Harathalu village, Kerehalli hobli, Hosanagara Taluk. The said property had been purchased on 12.01.1968 by his vendor Puttashetty. It is further stated that the said land was granted to Puttashetty on 27.12.1963. The said land was granted as a token of rehabilitation measure as some of the farmers have lost their lands in Sharavathi Hydro Electric Project. It is stated that, Puttashetty and his wife Jettamma have sold the property in favour of one Thimmashetty for valuable consideration. Thimmashetty was put in possession of the said property at the inception of the said transaction. -4- WP No. 55576 of 2014
3. The petitioner Ramadasaiah stated to have purchased the said property on 18.04.1975. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration declaring the petitioner is the owner of the property by adverse possession and for permanent injunction. The said suit came to be compromised between Ramadasaiah and Thimmashetty and the decree was drawn in terms of compromise.
4. By virtue of decree, mutation entry was effected in favour of the petitioner. However, in the meantime, the original grantee Sri.Thimmashetty died. On death of Sri.Thimmashetty, the LRs., have filed necessary application for change of mutation. Accordingly, the documents have been changed in pursuance of the order vide MR.No.31/1996-97.
The petitioner had challenged the said mutation entry before respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 confirmed the mutation entry. On revision being filed before the first respondent, the first respondent confirmed the same. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Heard Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri.B.N.Shetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
-5-WP No. 55576 of 2014
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner / respondent No.1 is contrary to the facts and also law, hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
7. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has committed an error in appreciating that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have no locus standi to seek transfer of khata in their names upon the death of their father Sri.Puttashetty.
8. It is further submitted that, the Sy.No.30 measuring 3 acres was sold by said Puttashetty and Smt.Jattamma in favour of Thimmashetty on 12.01.1968. It is stated that, once the land was sold to Thimmashetty, the children of Puttashetty have no right to claim the said property in any manner. In spite of the sale deed, the first respondent committed an error in confirming the mutation entry in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6.
9. It is further stated that, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to appreciate the decree passed by the Civil Court. The Deputy Commissioner ought not to have appreciated the -6- WP No. 55576 of 2014 merit or validity of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. The first respondent proceeded to say that notice in respect of respondent Nos.5 and 6 had not been issued at the time of compromise entered into between the petitioner and Thimmashetty in the civil suit which is unsustainable and exceeding the jurisdiction. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner substantiated the transfer of document in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the decree of the Civil Court and seeking to set aside the order of the first respondent.
10. Per contra, Sri.B.N.Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed statement of objections stating that, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law. The petitioner has no right to file the writ petition challenging the orders of respondent Nos.1 and
2.
11. It is further submitted that, the land measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.30 of Harathalu village in Hosanagara Taluk was allotted in favour of Puttashetty on 27.12.1963. The said allotment was subjected to the condition of 15 years of non- alienation clause. However, contrary to the said alienation, it is alleged that, said Puttashetty has sold the property in the year -7- WP No. 55576 of 2014 1967. On the strength of the sale deed, Timmashetty has approached the revenue authorities to transfer the title. However, as per the mutation order No.1/1967-68, the authorities have rejected the transfer of documents in favour of Thimmashetty.
12. The said Thimmashetty fraudulently entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner and the petitioner filed a suit for adverse possession against Thimmashetty in O.S.No.350/1997 and obtained a compromise decree which is collusive in nature. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 after coming to know the said fraudulent decree obtained by the petitioner and that mutation entry was effected in favour of the petitioner, challenged the same by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner by holding the mutation entry was made as per the compromise decree and rejected the appeal on 02.06.2011. In the meantime, the present petitioner herein had also challenged the mutation entry MR.No.31/1996-97 before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, after detailed enquiry, rejected the appeal on 05.09.2011. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner has filed revision before the first respondent. The first respondent -8- WP No. 55576 of 2014 rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. As such, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 prays to dismiss the writ petition.
13. Similarly, Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned AGA justifying the order of respondent Nos.1 to 4, submitted that, the authorities have passed order after verifying the documents in accordance with law. Therefore, interference with the orders passed by the authorities is not required and the orders passed by the authorities are sustainable. Making such submission, the learned AGA prays to dismiss the petition.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the document available on record, it appears that, Puttashetty was the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.30 measuring 3 acres situated at Harathalu village by virtue of grant dated 27.12.1963. It was granted as a measure of rehabilitation. There was non-alienation period of 15 years was one of the conditions. In spite of the said conditions, it is stated that the said Puttashetty had sold the property in favour of Thimmashetty by virtue of sale deed dated 12.01.1968. The said Thimmashetty approached the Revenue Authorities for change of revenue documents on the strength of the sale deed. However, the documents pertaining -9- WP No. 55576 of 2014 to the said property have not been changed in favour of Thimmashetty. In the meantime, the said Thimmashetty entered into agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner. In the interregnum, the said Puttashetty died and his legal representatives namely respondent Nos.5 and 6 have approached the revenue authorities on the strength of the death certificate of the original allottee. The inheritance khata has been transferred in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 vide its order MR.No.31/1996-97.
15. As could be seen from the records that, there were two mutation entries in respect of same property i.e., M.R.No.2/1982-83 and M.R.No.31/1996-97. In the meantime, the petitioner herein had filed a suit for declaration declaring the title on adverse possession against Thimmashetty. There was a compromise entered into between Thimmashetty and the petitioner. Accordingly, decree was drawn and in pursuance of the said decree, ultimately M.R.No.15/1998-99 was effected. The said order was challenged by respondent No.5 before the Assistant Commissioner - second respondent. The second respondent dismissed the appeal of respondent No.5. The said order has attained finality.
- 10 -
WP No. 55576 of 2014
16. In the interregnum, the petitioner challenged the mutation entry in M.R.No.31/1996-97 dated 17.06.1996 which was granted in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Considering the detailed enquiry, the second respondent dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein had preferred revision before the first respondent and the first respondent rejected the revision.
17. It is noticed here that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have not challenged the order of appeal filed before the second respondent in R.A.No.114/1999-2000 dated 02.06.2011. It is also noticed that, the petitioner herein had filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hosanagara seeking declaration and possession. A compromise decree came to be passed and mutation entry was effected in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the decree. The said decree has not been challenged by the respondent Nos.5 and 6. Unless it is challenged and reversed by the Appellate Court, the decree will be binding on the revenue authorities. Accordingly, the authorities should have acted in terms of decree.
18. In light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:
- 11 -
WP No. 55576 of 2014
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 28.04.2014 in R.Misc.No.25/2012-13
passed by the first respondent and the order dated 05.09.2011 passed by the second respondent in R.A.No.84/1998-99 and the mutation entry made on 28.07.1997 passed by the third respondent in M.R.No.31/1996-97 stands quashed.
iii) The third respondent is directed to effect the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner in terms of compromise decree in O.S.No.350/1997.
iv) No order as to cost. v) In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021
does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss