IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.8912 OF 2011(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
D.BASAVARAJU S/O DANDDA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUGOOR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.T.MURALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU.
3. TAHDILDAR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, T.NARASIPURA, MYSURU DISTRICT.
4. K.R.NAGARAJU S/O K.M.RACHAIAH, RESIDING AT HOSAKEMPAIANA HUNDI, KASABA HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI VIJAYANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.12.2010 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN REVISION NO.74 OF 2005-06 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- A, TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR THE DIRECTION TO THIRD RESPONDENT TO ENTER IN THE R.T.C. TITLE IN DISPUTE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner, insofar as the direction to the third respondent to enter the R.T.C. title in dispute.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order. That the R.T.C. entries would be subject to the orders of the Civil Court. Therefore, the question of the title could not have been gone into by the authorities.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, submits that the entries by the revenue authorities are always subject to the orders of the Civil Court. That there is a decree passed in R.A. No.16 of 1992, dated 22.09.2006. Therefore, necessarily the entries will be subject to the said judgment and decree.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted.
5. There is a decree that is passed in R.A. No.16 of 1992, dated 22.09.2006. It is submitted that suits have been filed by the respondents also. Under these circumstances, necessarily, the revenue entries would have to abide by the orders of the Civil Court.
6. Under these circumstances, the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in Revision No.74 of 2005- 06, dated 07.12.2010, vide Annexure-A, is modified and the revenue entries shall abide by the orders of the Civil Court. Under these circumstances, subject to the orders of the Civil Court all the revenue entries will abide by the same.
Writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE JJ