Karnataka High Court
H Puttaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2017
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP 55955/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.55955/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN
H.PUTTAIAH,
S/O LATE H.P.HONNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/A 3390/B, 5TH MAIN,
2ND CROSS, HAMPI NAGAR,
REMCO EXTENSION,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560104. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETATY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE TAHASILDAR,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562210. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
ENDORSEMENT DT:7.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND TO DIRECT THE R-2 AUTHORITY TO ENTER
THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN
WP 55955/2016
2
RESPECT OF SY NO.2/2 SITUATED AT HULIKAL VILLAGE, KUDUR
HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioner had filed O.S.No.237/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Magadi, seeking partition and separate possession of his share in the family properties. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.13612/2014 seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Magadi Taluk, to consider the representation submitted by him to include the name of petitioner and other members of the family in the revenue records of the land along with that of his brother. During the pendency of the said writ petition, parties to the suit who were also parties in the said writ petition, entered into a compromise and a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC was filed. All the parties were present before the Court in person along with their learned Counsel. The compromise petition was taken on record and writ petition was disposed of in terms of the compromise by recording the compromise. In the order passed by this Court, at paragraphs 6 & 7, it is observed as under:
WP 55955/20163
"6. The parties are also at liberty to seek disposal of O.S.No.237/2010 in terms of this compromise by getting a final decree drawn in terms of the compromise. In the alternative, the Trial Court is empowered to dispose the suit in terms of this order.
7. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed in terms of the compromise. Parties to bear their respective costs."
2. It is thus clear that this Court has recorded the compromise and has disposed of the writ petition in terms of the compromise. Although it has been observed in paragraph 6 that parties were at liberty to seek disposal of the suit in terms of the compromise, it transpires that before the certified copy of the order passed in the writ petition was obtained, the suit had been disposed of as withdrawn. Therefore, what remained was the order passed by this Court recording the compromise.
3. Petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Magadi Taluk, requesting him to record the names of the respective sharers in the revenue records based on the compromise. A representation vide Annexure-D was submitted on 07.09.2015 enclosing the copy of the order passed by this Court. When no action was WP 55955/2016 4 taken, petitioner filed W.P.No.21324/2016. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.08.2016 directing the Tahsildar to consider the representation within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, Annexure-F was given by the petitioner on 26.08.2016. In response to the same, impugned endorsement has been issued by the Tahsildar informing the petitioner that there was no provision in the computer software to enter khatha as per the decree passed by the Court and hence, entries could not be effected. Another reason assigned by the Tahsildar is that petitioner had to produce copy of the final decree in O.S.No.237/2010. This is how petitioner has approached this Court challenging the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, and find from the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by this Court that this Court has recorded the compromise petition filed by all the parties and having been satisfied that the compromise had been voluntarily entered into in order to settle their dispute amicably, has set down the compromise in detail in paragraph
4. In paragraph 7, it is clearly stated that the writ petition was WP 55955/2016 5 disposed of in terms of the compromise. Therefore, when the compromise is recorded by this Court and the writ petition has been disposed of in terms of the compromise, the Tahsildar is duty bound to record the names of the persons to whom the shares have been allotted in terms of the compromise as reflected in the order passed by this Court and the compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. The Tahsildar cannot refuse to act based on the order passed by this Court on the ground that computer software did not provide such an option or on the ground that petitioners had to file a copy of the final decree. Petitioners are not in a position to produce the final decree because the suit had been dismissed as withdrawn even before the certified copy of the order passed in the writ petition could be obtained. But, there cannot be any impediment for the Tahsildar to act on the basis of the order passed by the High Court. At best, the Tahsildar has to hear all the parties concerned before effecting entries in the khatha. Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to succeed.
5. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned endorsement is quashed. The Tahsildar is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for effecting katha in the WP 55955/2016 6 light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13612/2014 dated 10.12.2014 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, by notifying all the interested parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK