IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION Nos.10907 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
P. KRISHNAPPA S/O PAPAIAH ALIAS PILLAPPA, AGED 77 YEARS, RETIRED VISL EMPLOYEE RESIDING AT BETTARAHALLI VEERAGONAGARA POST BENGALURU - 560 049. ...PETITIONER (By Sri A.R.HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
3. TAHSILDAR BHADRAVATHI TALUK, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
4. SRI V.RAJU S/O K.V.VENKATESH MAJOR, RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS RAMACHANDRAPPA LAYOUT, VEERANAPALYA, NAGAVARA POST BENGALURU - 560 045. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.R.MISC.35/2011-12 DATED 07.09.2017, ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER NO.R.MISC 35/11-12 DATED 22.09.2018, PASSED BY R-1, ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT R-1 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER ON MERITS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein is seeking to impugn the order of the first respondent dated 07.09.2017 in R.Misc.35/2011-12 vide Annexure – ‘F’.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner herein is claiming himself as the son of Smt.Papamma, Wife of Papaiah alias Pillappa. It is stated that the said Papamma is grantee of 3 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.33 of Belligere Village, Balehonnur Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shivamogga District. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid extent was granted in favour of his mother in Proceedings No.LND.CR.24/1983-84 dated 17.02.1984 pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi Taluk. Thereafter, Papamma died in the year 2003 leaving the petitioner as her legal heir who is the sole survivor to the property of the said Papamma.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent herein approached the Authorities seeking mutation of the land granted in favour of his mother in Sy.No.33 of Belligere Village, Balehonnur Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk and got the said land mutated in his name vide M.R.No.19/2008-09 dated 25.05.2009 pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar. The petitioner would state that he filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Shivamogga in R.A./PDA/165/2010-11 challenging the order of Tahsildar in mutating the said land in favour of the fourth respondent. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 05.08.2011 where the Assistant Commissioner, would observe that since there is dispute with reference to the succession to the property of the deceased Papamma, the same cannot be decided in revenue proceedings which is initiated in challenging the mutation entry. For that, the parties have to go before the Civil Court.
4. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 05.08.2011 was under challenge before the Deputy Commissioner in R.Misc.No.35/2011-12, which came to be dismissed by order dated 07.09.2017, in confirming the finding of the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 05.08.2011. The order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as that of Deputy Commissioner is sought to be challenged in this proceedings.
5. Heard the learned counsel of the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On going through the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 05.08.2011 in R.A./PDA/165/2010- 11 appears to be just and proper both on facts on and in law in as much as there being dispute with reference to the right of succession between the petitioner herein and the fourth respondent both of whom are claiming themselves to be the sole surviving legal heir of the deceased Papamma, the grantee of land bearing Sy.No.33 of Belligere Village, Balehonnur Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shivamogga District measuring to an extent of 3 acres 17 guntas. It is appropriate for the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their right as rightly observed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bhadravathi Taluk. The same cannot be decided in revenue proceedings.
6. In that view of the matter, challenge to the order of the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner in R.Misc.No.35/2011-12 dated 07.09.2017 vide Annexure – ‘D’ cannot be interfered in these proceedings. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE DH