Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kavitha vs The Deputy Commissioner & Ors on 21 September, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.206939/2017 (KLR-RR-SUR)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Kavitha
W/o Late Bakkappa
Aged about 39 years
Occ: House Hold
R/o Mamankeri Village
Tq & Dist: Bidar
...Petitioner
(By Sri Ravi B. Patil & Smt. Sujata Patil, Advocates)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner
Bidar, D.C. Office
Dist: Bidar - 585 401
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Bidar, D.C. Office
Dist: Bidar - 585 401
3. The Tahasildar Bidar
Tahasil Office
Bidar - 585 401
4. Smt. Kamalamma
Alleged W/o Late Bakkappa
Aged about 54 years
2
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Mamankeri Village
Tq & Dist: Bidar - 585 401
5. Rajkumar
Alleged S/o Late Bakkappa
Aged about 36 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Mamankeri Village
Tq & Dist: Bidar - 585 401
6. Tejamma W/o Hanumanthappa
Since Deceased through LR's
Malshetty S/o Hanumanthappa
Aged Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Mamankeri Village
Tq & Dist: Bidar - 585 401
...Respondents
(By Sri A. Syed Habeeb, AGA for R1 to R3)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to a) call for the records
in Revision Petition No.Appeal/RP/52/2015 dated:
24.07.2017 on the file of 1st respondent the Deputy
Commissioner Bidar b) issue a writ of certiorari any other
writ or direction to quash the order impugned dated
24.07.2017 passed by the 1st respondent authority in
Revision Petition No.Appeal/RP/52/2015 as at Annexure-
F, and consequentially to set aside the order dated
06.02.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent authority in file
No.REV/Appeal/CR-49/2011-12/6258/60 as at Annexure-
E, as illegal without authority of law and etc.
3
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 1st respondent authority in Revision Petition No.Appeal/RP/52/2015 and the order passed by the 2nd respondent authority in file No.REV/Appeal/CR-49/2011- 12/6258/60.
2. The petitioner claims that she is the legally wedded wife of Bakkappa. It is the claim of the petitioner that the land in Sy.No.5 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas situated at Allamkeri village, Taluka and District Bidar was owned and possessed by her deceased husband having derived the same from his ancestors. The petitioner claiming to be the legal heir had filed an application before 4 the 3rd respondent authority to effect transfer of mutation entry in her name and respondent Nos.4 and 5 claiming to be the legal heirs of deceased Bakappa filed their objections for such transfer.
3. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, land in Sy.No.8 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas being owned and possessed by Smt. Tejamma W/o Hanumanthappa, had executed a gift deed in favour of petitioner by registered document, on the basis of which the petitioner sought change of mutation. However, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed their objections to effect mutation in the name of the petitioner based on the suit filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for the relief of partition and separate possession.
4. The 3rd respondent authority considering the material submitted by the concerned parties effected transfer of mutation in respect of land in Sy.No.5 and 8 situated at Allamkeri village allowing the claim of the petitioner.
5
5. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5 preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the 2nd respondent authority who confirmed the mutation order passed by the 3rd respondent in respect of Sy.No.8 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas and set aside the mutation effected in Sy.No.5.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred revision before the 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner. The said revision petition came to be dismissed confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Hence, this writ petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. The authorities below have observed that O.S.No.140/2007 was preferred by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in as much as claiming rights over the property in question as the legal heirs/wife and son of the deceased Bakkappa. 6 Thus, it is apparent that dispute is in subsistence between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in so far as their rights over the property in question. The said suit O.S.No.140/2007 was dismissed for non-prosecution and no finding is recorded by the Civil Court as regards the rights of the parties. In the circumstances, the revisional authority held that the issue remained a civil dispute and same has to be resolved in the appropriate Court of law. Accordingly, confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner as regards Sy.No.5 is concerned.
9. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the authorities below after setting aside the mutation entry registered in the name of the petitioner has not clarified as regards the revenue entry of the property standing in the name of the deceased Bakkappa; taking undue advantage of the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are making an attempt to get the mutation entry changed in their name. This argument is wholly fallacious.
7
10. It is needless to mention that once the order is set aside, the original order which was challenged before the authority is restored and no explicit observation to that effect is necessary.
The writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu