IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.24013/2016(KLR-RR/SUR) AND WRIT PETITION Nos.24313-24314/2016(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DILSHAD BEGUM W/O LATE. O.N.S.ABBAS SAB DEAD BY LRs 1(a) AKBAR ULLA S/O LATE O.N.S.ABBAS SAB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS T.B. CIRCLE, HONNALI DAVANAGERE.
1(b) KALLIL S/O LATE O.N.S.ABBAS SAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A. #36, 9TH CROSS VINAYAKA NAGAR BANGALORE-97.
1(C) RAMAHTULLA S/O LATE O.N.S.ABBAS SAB AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS T.B. CIRCLE, HONNALI DAVANAGERE.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH G KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-578 201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE-578 201.
4. THE TAHASILDAR HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE-578 201.
5. SRI.S. KARIBASAPPA S/O SANNARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O HALEDEVARHONNALI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-578 201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: Y.D.HARSHA, AGA, FOR R1 TO R4, SRI: PRASANNA B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:01.02.2016 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Shri Manjunath G. Kandekar, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that petitioners’ father Shri. O.N.S. Abbas Sab mortgaged the property in question in favour of Sannarangappa(5th respondent’s father) in the year 1979. Pursuant to the mutation, the name of mortgagee was entered in the revenue records in column 9 of Record of Rights. After the death of their father, petitioners’ mother challenged the revenue entry effected in the name of 5th respondent’s father in the year 2012 before the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere and the said appeal was allowed. Feeling aggrieved, 5th respondent challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere before the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere. The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, by the impugned order dated 1st of February 2016 has set-aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere and directed to restore the revenue entries in the name of 5th respondent and further directed petitioners’ mother to work out her remedy in the civil court. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that a suit for redemption has already been filed by petitioners’ mother in O.S.No.204/2016 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali.
2. Admittedly, the MR entries have been mutated in the year 1979 based on the mortgage deed and again in the name of the 5th respondent in the year 1996 based on the agreement of sale. The grievance of the petitioners is that the same is not in accordance with law because the entries have been changed on the strength of a mortgage deed and an agreement. Both documents do not convey any title. Therefore, revenue entries could not have been entered in the name of respondent No.5.
3. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 argued in support of the impugned order.
4. The undisputed fact is that the name of 5th respondent’s father has been entered in column 9 in the year 1979 pursuant to the mortgage deed executed by the petitioners’ father Sri. O.N.S. Abbas Sab. Parties have accepted this position till 2012. Petitioners’ mother has already filed a suit for redemption. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere directing restoration of name of 5th respondent and continuing his name in the records. Petitioners have already filed a civil suit and parties shall be governed by the outcome in the suit. In view of above admitted facts, no direction can be issued at this stage to enter petitioners’ name in the revenue records.
Hence, petitions fail and the same are dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-