IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.2982/2011(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE BUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, 1(a) SMT.RAMAKKA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 1(b) SMT.SONNAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 1(c) SRI SONNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 1(d) SRI.ANJINAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1(e) SMT.MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1(d) SMT.UMADEVI D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562 110 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI A LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, , DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUIDLING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. BANGALORE 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR DIVISION. BANGALORE 560 001.
4. THE THASILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562 110, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
5. SRI JEEBAIAH, S/O OONAGARALA MUNISHAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 5(a) SMT.LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE JEEBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 5(b) SMT.DYAVAMMA, D/O LATE JEEBAIAH, W/O N.R.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5(c) MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE JEEBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 5(a) to (c) ARE RESIDING AT NARAYANAPURA, VIJAYAPURA HOBALI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK.
6. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O GANGAPPA, PEDDANAHALLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK -562 114, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI ROHITH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SRI MAHANTESH S. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN REV.PET.NO.67/2008-09 DATED 15.3.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PREFERRED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT HEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE LAND IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.96/1 MEASURING 2 ACRE 1 GUNTAS OF LAND SITUATED AT NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, VIJYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is by the 2nd respondent in Revision Petition No.67/2007-2008 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in impugning the order dated 15.03.2010, which is at Annexure ‘A’.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
Fifth respondent in this proceedings, Jeebaiah would claim himself as owner of land bearing Sy.No.96/1 measuring to an extent of 2 acres 1 gunta of Narayanapura Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. It is seen that he would initially file a suit in OS.No.333/1992 against the petitioner for the relief of permanent injunction with reference to the aforesaid land. Subsequently, on 18.6.1996 he would file a memo in said suit seeking dismissal of the suit as not pressed.
3. Thereafter, the very same Jeebaiah files another suit in O.S.No.247/1996 on the file of Munsiff Court at Devanahalli, for the relief of declaration of his ownership over the suit schedule property, to declare him as a person in possession of the said property and consequently, for an order of permanent injunction against the 4th defendant in said suit. The 1st defendant in said suit is petitioner herein. In the said suit, Jeebaiah also sought for cancellation of sale deed dated 10.10.1968 said to have executed by one Unegal Munishamappa in favour of Kempamma; 2nd sale deed dated 22.9.1970 executed by 2nd defendant – Kempamma in favour of 3rd defendant – Laxmamma; 3rd sale deed dated 16.4.1973 by 3rd defendant – Laxmamma in favour of 1st defendant - Muniyappa in respect of 1 ½ guntas in Sy.No.99/1 as well as 4th sale deed dated 23.10.1974 executed by 1st defendant - Muniyappa in favour of 4th defendant – Pilla Sonnappa, as they are null and void.
4. It is seen that said suit was contested on merits and disposed of by judgment and decree dated 29.7.2005 where the prayers sought for by the plaintiff in OS.No.247/1996 are dismissed. After the suit of the plaintiff - Jeebaiah is dismissed, it is seen that he has not preferred any appeal against that. Instead, he would approach the revenue authorities to pursue the matter on revenue side by filing a petition before the Tahsildar for mutating the land in question in his name in proceedings bearing No.M.T.4/1990- 91 and MT.9/1991-92 by removing the existing entries. The said petitions are dismissed. As against that he has approached the Assistant Commissioner of Doddaballapura - 3rd respondent. The said proceedings which is under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for short) is filed against the petitioner herein and three other persons also came to be dismissed in proceedings No.RA(DH)14/2006-07 by order dated 21.5.2007.
5. The Assistant Commissioner while dismissing the appeal in No.RA(DH)14/2006-07 has looked in to several litigations between Jeebaiah and respondents 1 to 4 before him and after considering the same, held that the petitioner before him viz., Jeebaiah having failed to establish his title to the property in question is not entitled to seek any relief under Section 136(2) to change mutation entry of the disputed property to his name. Against the said order, a revision was filed by the 5th respondent herein, which is in Revision Petition No.67/2007-08 on the file of 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The said revision petition is allowed by order dated 15.03.2010, which is challenged by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that in the said revision petition, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order impugned without looking in to the earlier rounds of litigations between Jeebaiah and others, who are claiming title to the property in question, where Jeebaiah having lost the litigations with reference to his ownership and possession has secured an order under Section 136(3) of the Act for change of katha of property in question to his name, when admittedly, his title to said property is denied by the Civil Court and his possession is not recognized, which is sought to be challenged by the 2nd respondent in said revision petition in this proceedings.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of original petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the contesting 5th respondent. So far as contesting 5th respondent is concerned, he is said to have died during the pendency of this proceedings and in his place his legal representatives have come on record. Perused the material on record as well as the order impugned.
7. On going through the material on record, it is clearly seen that Jeebaiah – 5th respondent having lost his suit for declaring his title to the property in question and also having lost his prayer for recognizing him as a person in possession of the suit schedule property in the said proceedings has no manner of right, title or interest to get the mutation entry changed in his name in respect of the said property. In fact, the same being discussed at length by the Assistant Commissioner of Doddaballapur in a well reasoned order passed by him on 21.5.2007, for the reasons best known to the Deputy Commission, ignoring the same he has passed the order impugned in directing the authorities to change the katha of the property in question in favour of Jeebaiah, which is erroneous on the face of it. Hence, the order impugned is required to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Revision Petition No.67/2007-2008 is set aside, consequently the revenue authorities are directed to maintain the entries which were standing in the name of the petitioner and others as it was prior to the order impugned was passed.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-