IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.50664/2017 (KLR – RES) BETWEEN:
SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT ... PETITIONER [BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT.DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADV.] AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009 3. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
4. SRI V.RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
5. SRI V.KAVERAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106.
6. SMT.MUNIYAMMA W/O SRI PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT BANDENALLASANDRA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI S.SRIKANTH, ADV. FOR R-4 & R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.10.2017 IN R.P.NO.204/2013-14 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEX-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy waives of notice for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.10.2017 passed in Revision Petition No.204/2013-14 by the respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent No.1 to uphold the order passed by the second respondent – Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-division in Appeal No.R.A.[A].187/2008-09 dated 25.09.2013.
4. The petitioner is claiming to be the daughter of Smt.Yellamma W/o Donne Muniyappa who purchased the lands in question namely land bearing Sy.Nos.11/1, 11/2 and 11/3 measuring 09 guntas, 07 guntas and 05 guntas respectively all situated at Avalahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District from Smt.Lakshmamma and she was in possession and enjoyment of the lands during her lifetime. It is contended that a portion of lands in Sy.Nos.11/1, 11/2 and 11/3 measuring 09 guntas, 07 guntas and 05 guntas respectively have been acquired for laying a railway track. The remaining extent of land has been phoded and is assigned with new Survey Nos.11/1A, 11/2A and 11/3A, for an extent of 29 guntas, 23 guntas and 37 guntas respectively. The petitioner’s mother Smt.Yellamma died leaving behind the petitioner and her sister Smt.Muniyamma [respondent No.6 herein] as her only legal heirs and successors to her estate and properties. The respondent No.4 allegedly purchased the lands in question from Donne Muniyappa, who had no right, title, interest or possession of the lands in question. On the basis of the alleged sale deed said to have been executed by Donne Muniyappa, the revenue entries got mutated in the name of the purchasers. The petitioner filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.223/2008 in respect of lands in question against the respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein and during the pendency of the said suit, the orders impugned are passed, reversing the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub- division, Bangalore – Respondent No.2 herein.
5. Learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel on record for the petitioner would submit that prima-facie it is apparent that Donne Muniyappa had no authority to execute any sale deed relating to the properties in question when the same was acquired by Smt.Yellamma W/o Donne Muniyappa through registered sale deed dated 10.07.1957. The revenue authorities considering the said invalid sale deed ought to have rejected the claim of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to mutate the revenue records in their name. However, the said revenue entries being mutated, the petitioner was constrained to file an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner – Respondent No.2 who rightly allowed the appeal but strangely respondent No.1 reversed the same without analyzing the effect of the registered sale deed relied upon by the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
6. Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent Nos.4 and 5 would submit that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.223/2008 before the Court of Civil Judge [Sr.Dvn] and JMFC, Anekal seeking relief of partition and to declare the registered sale deed dated 27.08.1976 executed by the husband of the plaintiff therein [Donne Muniyappa] and that the alleged partition effected between the family members of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiff. The said suit has been dismissed on 23.08.2016 and has reached finality. In view of the same, the stand of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. It is further submitted that the revenue authorities have no competency to decide the legality or otherwise of the registered sale deeds. Hence, the order of the Deputy Commissioner- respondent No.1 impugned herein cannot be held unjustifiable.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is well settled legal principle that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to examine the legality and correctness of the registered sale deeds executed between the parties. It is based on the registered sale deed dated 27.08.1976, the mutation was effected in the name of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, which was not disturbed for a long period. It is only on the appeal filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.2, registered as R.A[A].187/2008-09, mutation effected in respect of the lands in question based on the registered sale deed was set aside and the same being challenged in Revision by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the same came to be allowed, considering the pendency of O.S.NO.223/2008 before the competent Civil Court and the mutation effected after about 40 and 12 years respectively, in respect of the respondent Nos.4 and 5, relating to the property in question. In view of the dismissal of O.S.No.223/2008 and no further proceedings being initiated by the petitioner against the same, the revenue entries directed to be made by the authorities in terms of the order of the respondent No.1 impugned herein, requires to be confirmed.
Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
NC.
Sd/- JUDGE