Karnataka High Court
Sri. Krapalgir S/O Dharmaplgir vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 3 December, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9176
WP No. 202790 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 202790 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KRAPALGIR
S/O DHARMAPLGIR
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BASAVAKALYAN,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585 327.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH.S.KALBURGI,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
MS BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
Digitally
signed by
LUCYGRACE 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Location: BIDAR-585401.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585 327.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585327.
DHARMA SINCE DECEASD BY HIS LRS.
5. GOPAL
S/O DHARMA RATHOD
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9176
WP No. 202790 of 2019
R/O GOUR THANDA,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585327.
6. RAM S/O DHARMA RATHOD
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GOUR THANDA,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585327.
REVU SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
7. DAMLU S/O REVU
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GOUR THANDA,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585327.
8. BHAKT PRAHALAD
S/O DAMLU RATHOD
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GOUR THANDA,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585327.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4
R-5, R-6 & R-8 ARE SREVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
18.02.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO.RA/CR/12/2003-04 BY RESPONDENT
NO.2, THE COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9176
WP No. 202790 of 2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
"i) Quash the order dated: 18.02.2019 passed in case no. RA/CR/12/2003-04 by respondent no.2, the copy of which is at Annexure-N.
ii) Direct the respondents to correct the ROR by deleting entries/names appearing in column no. 11 of ROR in respect of property bearing Sy.No.27 to the extent of 14 acres 05 gutnas in Gour village, Taluka Basavakalyan, Dist:
Bidar.
iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may be deemed necessary to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record will indicate that there were previous rounds of litigation between the petitioner and private respondents 5 to 8 including W.P.No.45749/2003, W.P.No.44748/2003 and W.P.No.22020/2001, which were disposed of by this Court. Subsequently, there was a suit in -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9176 WP No. 202790 of 2019 O.S.No.71/2013 between the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8 which culminated in a compromise decree dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Basavakalyan. In pursuance of the said compromise decree, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner to mutate the Khata into his name in terms of the compromise decree. The said request was rejected by the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the compromise decree itself was prima facie illegal and incorrect and the same cannot be granted. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Deputy Commissioner has clearly misdirected himself in taking into account the extraneous circumstance while coming to the conclusion that the compromise decree was illegal and incorrect; in this context, it is relevant to state that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka - 2020 SCC OnLine KAR 211, any decree or order or proceedings of the competent civil court would be binding -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9176 WP No. 202790 of 2019 upon the revenue authorities who did not have jurisdiction or authority of law to render any finding or mention into the legality, correctness or otherwise of any judgment, decree or order etc., passed by the competent civil court. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner fell in error in passing the impugned order, which deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to respondents 2 to 4 to mutate the khata and change revenue records in terms of the compromise decree dated 19.11.2013 passed in O.S.No.71/2013.
5. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-N dated 18.02.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.
(iii) The concerned respondents 2 to 4 are directed to make necessary entries in the revenue records / khata in relation to the subject land in terms of the compromise decree dated 19.11.2013 passed in O.S.No.71/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge, -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9176 WP No. 202790 of 2019 Basavakalyan, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17