Karnataka High Court
Shri. Sidrameshwar Mahantappa Gaddi vs Smt. Shantadevi W/O Mahantappa Gaddi on 17 December, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE DAY OF 17TH DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP NO 101926 OF 2016 (KLR)
BETWEEN
SHRI. SIDRAMESHWAR MAHANTAPPA GADDI,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULKTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: CTS NO.2010,
KILLA STREET
ILKAL-587125,
TALUKA: HUNAGUND
DIST: BAGALKOT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI : MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV.,)
AND
1 . SMT. SHANTADEVI W/O MAHANTAPPA GADDI,
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O WARD NO.7,
NEAR APMC ILKAL-587125
TALUKA: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT
2 . SHRI GANESH S/O MAHANTAPPA GADDI,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O CTS NO.3213,
2
KOPPARAD PETH
ILKAL-587125,
TALUKA: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3 . SHRI UMESH S/O MAHANTAPPA GADDI,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O OPP. COLLEGE COMPLEX,
JOSHI GALLI
ILKAL-587125,
TALUKA: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT
4 . SHRI SANTOSH S/O MAHANTAPPA GADDI,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O WARD NO.7,
NEAR APMC ILKAL-587125
TALUKA: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT
5 . SMT SUMANGALA D/O MAHANTAPPA GADDI
AFTER MARRIAGE KNOWN AS
SMT SUMANGALA W/O PRAKASH BEERANOOR
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
R/O VATSALYA NURSING HOME
NEAR NEW BUS STAND,
GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580030,
DIST: DHARWAD
6 . KUMARI SAHANA D/O SHIVARAJ PATIL
AGE: 12 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL FATHER
GUARDIAN SHIVARAJ PANDITRAO PATIL
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
3
R/O. SHASTRI NANGAR,
NEAR SHADI MAHAL
VIJAYPURA-586102.
7 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT,
NAVANAGAR
BAGALKOT-587102
8 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT,
NAVANAGAR
BAGALKOT-587102
9 . THE TAHASILDAR HUNAGUND
MINI VIDHAN SOUDH,
HUNAGUND-587118
DIST: BAGALKOT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MRUTYUNJAYA HALLIKERI, ADV., FOR R1 TO 4;
SMT.GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R7 TO R9;
R5 AND 6 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED:08.10.2015, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K, THE
ORDER DATED:23.07.2012, PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND
THE ORDER DATED:18.05.2012, PASSED BY THE TAHASILDAR
HUNAGUND, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The name of the petitioner was mutated in respect of the lands in question by virtue of the registered sale deed executed in his favour. However, the said registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was set aside on the ground that after purchasing the lands in question, there was a registered partition deed effected between the petitioners and respondents No.1 to 6. Hence, in view of the registered partition deed executed between the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 6, the names of the petitioner as well as respondents No.1 to 6 were mutated in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question in terms of the arbitration award said to have been passed by the panchas. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order of the Tahsildar before the Assistant Commissioner, which came to be dismissed and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, this writ petition. 5
2. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Admittedly, petitioner purchased the lands in question through registered partition deed and in pursuance of the same, the name of the petitioner was mutated. Thereafter registered partition deed was effected between the parties and in pursuance of the same the names of Petitioners and Respondents 1 to 6 were mutated. The mutation effected in favour of the petitioner as well as respondents No.1 to 6 is in terms of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Authorities. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is dismissed.6
ii) It is made clear that the entries effected in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 is subject to out come of R.A.No.46/2012 pending on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vb/-