IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.3335 OF 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) Between:
Smt.K.Kamalamma, W/o K. Kempegowda, Aged about 50 years, D.No.562A, Buddamarga, Siddarthanagara, Mysuru. ... Petitioner (By Sri. V. Srinivas, Adv.,) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, To Revenue Department, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division, Pandavapura.
4. The Tahasildar, Nagamangala Taluk.
5. Lakkanngowda, S/o. Kempegowda @ Papegowda, Dead by LRs., 5(a). Smt. Narasamma, W/o. Late Lakkannagowda, 5(b). D.L.Narayana, S/o. Late Lakkannagowda, 5(c). D.L.Paramesha, S/o. Late Lakkannagowda, 5(d). D.L.Somesha, S/o. Late Lakkannagowda, 5(e). Vijyalakshmi, W/o. Mayanna, D/o. Late. Lakkannagowda, 5(f). Bhagya, W/o. K.C.Nagaraju, D/o. Late Lakkannagowda, 5(g). Meenakshi, W/o. Srinivasa, D/o. Late Lakkannagowda, 5(h). Padma, W/o. Venkatesh, D/o. Late Lakkannagowda, Respondents No.5(a) to 5(h) are residing at Dodda Uppala Village, Devalapura Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk. ... Respondents (By Sri. T.S.Mahantesh, AGA for R1 to R4; Sri. D.L.Somesh, Adv., for R5 (b to h); R-5(a) is served) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 15.11.2011 passed in RP 49/2003 on the file of Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya vide Annexure-F and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for ‘Orders’ this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petitioner who is respondent No.1 in R.Misc. No.151/2001-02 on the file of respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner has filed this petition impugning the order dated 15.11.2011 passed in R.P. No.49/2003 by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under:
Petitioner herein is widow of one Kempe Gowda, who is the brother of respondent No.5-Lakkanna Gowda. Admittedly, the father of petitioner’s husband-Kempe Gowda and respondent No.5-Lakkanna Gowda, is also Kempe Gowda @ Pape Gowda. The grievance of respondent No.5-Lakkanna Gowda, who was petitioner in R. Misc. 151/2001-02, is that the partition that had taken place in the family of the petitioner’s husband and others resulting in the order passed in MR No.19/1992-93, is erroneous. The subject matter of the said proceedings was challenged before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, who by order dated 21.3.3003 referred the matter back to respondent No.4-Tahsildar for reconsideration of the same which was said to have been challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision petition No.49/2003 on the file of respondent No.2. The said revision petition was dismissed by order dated 15.11.2011 relying upon an unreported judgment rendered in the matter of Mallegowda Vs. Channaveeregowda and others dated 18.8.2011 in W.P. No.11953/2011 on the ground that in such matters, the revision does not lie to Deputy Commissioner. The said order of Deputy Commissioner is under challenge on the premise that in the light of the subsequent judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of ASHOK VS. PANDURANG reported in LAWS(KAR)-2012-
8-223, the order of Deputy Commissioner is erroneous and the matter requires remand to him to be considered on merits.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for contesting respondent No.5, since deceased, represented by respondent No.5(a) to 5(h).
4. On going through the materials available on record, it is clear that the original order under challenge is of respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner as he remanded the matter back to Tahsildar to consider the same in accordance with law after issuing notice to the parties. No opinion was expressed by respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner with reference to the right of the parties who agitated before him. In that view of the matter, even assuming that the revision petition is permissible before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, it would not serve any purpose inasmuch as the original proceeding was restored to the file of Tahsildar and in the said proceedings, the parties were directed to produce all the documents with reference to property in question and to get correction in the revenue entries which was passed in MR No.19/1992-93.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the petitioner is entitled to file revision petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be necessary and appropriate for the petitioner. Hence it is appropriate for him to appear and get the entries corrected with reference to M.R. No.19/1992-93 since the same is the subject matter of lis in O.S. No.15/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, wherein the said suit is filed by legal representatives of respondent No.5 Lakkanna Gowda for the relief of partition.
6. With aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Cs/-
CT:RG Sd/- JUDGE