IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.367 & 1735 – 1736/2019 (KLR – RES) BETWEEN:
1. Mr. BONALA SUBBA REDDY S/O SESHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.7-5-95A NIRMALA NAGARA, ANJAIAH ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. BONALA RAMA GOPALA REDDY S/O SESHI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.8-317(A) MANGAMUR ROAD ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-506310 3. Mr. MOTUMAARI NAGESHWARA RAO S/O ANJANEYULU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.2-101 OPPOSITE ANDHRA BANK UPPUGAUNDUR - 523 186 PRAKASAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI PHANIRAJ KASHYAP, ADV.] AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALURU URBAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560009.
3. TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560009.
4. SMT.AMMAYAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 5. SMT.GOWARAMMA D/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 6. SRI RAVUKUMAR S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 7. SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. SRI RAJENDRA S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 9. SMT.MANJULA D/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 10. SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 11. SRI MUNIRAJU D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 12. SMT.MUNINARAYANAMMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 13. SRI THYAGARAJU S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 14. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 15. SRI CHINNAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 16. SRI JAYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 17. SRI MARIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R-4 TO R-17 ARE R/AT CHIKKATOGURU VILLAGE BESURU HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560010.
18. SRI K.NAGABUSHAN S/O K.P.SATYANARAYAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560004.
19. SRI RAMAMURTHY S/O S.N.SHASTRY, NO.200, 10TH C MAIN, 1ST FLOOR, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560004.
20. SMT.KATYAINI W/O LATE T.K.CHANDRASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 21. SMT.KALAVATHI D/O LATE T.K.CHANDRASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 22. SMT.VIDHYA VENKAT D/O LATE T.K.CHANDRASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R-20 TO R-22 ARE R/AT 12/56 UDANI LAYOUT, CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ULSOOR BENGALURU-560008. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI H.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI NAIK N.R., ADV. FOR C/R-4 TO R-17;
NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R-18 TO R-22.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.11.2018 PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN R.P.NO.153/2016-17 VIDE ANENXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have called in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.153/2016-17 as well as the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 06.04.2016 in R.A.(S) No.300/2006-07.
2. Petitioners are claiming to be the purchasers of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.27 of Basapura village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, purchased through their vendor one Mallesh Reddy through the registered sale deed dated 12.01.2005.
3. It transpires that pursuant to the said registered sale deed, mutation entries were effected relating to the property in question in favour of the petitioners in the year 2006. Respondent Nos.4 to 17 filed appeal in R.A.No.300/2006-07 before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the said mutation entries effected in favour of the petitioners and also filed O.S.No.778/2006 against the petitioners and others seeking the relief of injunction. The appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner being allowed, O.S.No.778/2006 was withdrawn by the respondent Nos.4 to 17. Petitioners herein had filed Revision Petition against the order of the Assistant Commissioner in R.P.No.153/2016-17. Respondent Nos.4 to 17 has filed O.S.No.1339/2016 seeking declaration and other reliefs against the petitioners herein and others. Revision Petition has been dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court has seized of the matter. Hence, these writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel Sri. Phaniraj Kashyap, appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Prakash vs. Deputy Commissioner and others in W.P.No.49846/2018 disposed of on 15.11.2018, submitted that there was delay of more than 38 years in challenging the mutation entries in question. The property in question has passed through several hands since 1968 and it is only in the year 2006, respondent Nos.4 to 17 have challenged the mutation effected in the name of the petitioners. Nextly, it was argued that the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground that the Civil Court has seized of the matter. It was incumbent on the Deputy Commissioner to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner restoring the mutation entries effected in favour of the petitioners in the year 2006.
5. Learned counsel Sri. Naik N.R., appearing for the respondent Nos.14 to 17, disputing the transactions of sale said to have been made by the original owners/ancestors, referred to by the petitioners, pointed out that no document was placed on record by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner to substantiate their claim regarding the title to the property and for entering their names in revenue records. Considering the relevant factors, the Assistant Commissioner rightly restored the name of Muniswamappa, S/o late Mangappa in the revenue records observing that the same shall be subject to the result of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court since the parties have approached competent Civil Court. This order has not been rightly disturbed by the Deputy Commissioner and the same deserves to be confirmed. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 17 has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of D.S. Basavegowda and others vs. The District Commissioner, Mysore District and others reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka 314.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. Indisputably, O.S.No.1339/2016 is pending between the parties herein, before the competent Civil Court initiated by the respondent Nos.4 to 17 seeking declaration and other consequential reliefs. It is a well settled law that the revenue courts are not competent to adjudicate the rights of the parties with regard to the immovable property and now the lis is seized of by the Civil Court. It is obvious that on the failure of the petitioners furnishing the relevant documents regarding acquisition of the properties in question from Muniswamappa by the previous vendors of the petitioners, mutation entries were directed to be restored in the name of Muniswamappa, however, subject to the result of the civil suit pending between the parties, which cannot be found fault with. Similarly, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be held to be unjustifiable.
8. In the circumstances, revenue authorities are directed to enter the details of the pending suit in the revenue records while restoring the name of the Muniswamappa as directed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The entries, so made, are subject to the final judgment and decree in O.S.No.1339/2016. The entries regarding details of the suit shall be deleted after the disposal of the same.
Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR