IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.31000/2014 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT ALAMABADI VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 562 106.
(BY SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVANA K.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.
2 . ASSISTANT COMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.
3 . THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.
4 . RATHNAPPA S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH MAJOR ...PETITIONER RESIDING AT NO.568 6TH CROSS, CHANNAKESHAVA NAGARA, SINGASANDRA POST BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK – 560 036.
5 . VENKATESH S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
6 . ANJANAPPA S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKATHOGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
7 . NAGARAJA S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 7(a). SHYLAJA W/O NAGARAJA.
7(b) PRAVEENA N S/O LATE NAGARAJA.
7(c) REKHA N D/O LATE NAGARAJA.
7(d) MANJUNATHA N S/O LATE NAGARAJA.
RESPONDENTS NO.7(a-d) ARE R/AT CHIKKATHOGUR (V) ELECTRONIC CITY (P) BANGALORE – 100.
8 . SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKATHOGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK – 560 036.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI. P.V. KALPANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-8;
R-5, R-6, R-7 (a) TO R-7(d) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:21.01.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN REVISION PETITION NO.213/2006- 07 VIDE ANN-A AND RESTORE THE ORDER DATED:01.12.2006 PASSED BY THE R-2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has called in question order dated 21.01.2014 passed by first respondent in R.P.No.213/2006-07- Annexure-A and seeks for restoring the order dated 01.12.2006 passed by second respondent in R.A.(S)111/2006-07.
2. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would indicate that land bearing various survey numbers situated at Doddathogur village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, originally belonged to Sri. Lakshmaiah, who is the father-in-law of petitioner and father of respondent Nos.4 to 8. Petitioner herein claiming 1/7th share in said property and had filed a suit in O.S.No.111/1983 for partition and separate possession. In said suit a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC came to be filed and accepting the same a compromise decree came to be passed. It is thereafter mutation entry came to be effected in the name of respondent Nos.4 to 8 by M.R.No.29/2006-07 by the jurisdictional Tahsildar i.e., 3rd respondent.
3. Being aggrieved by said entry, petitioner filed an appeal before second respondent in R.A.(S)111/2006-07, which came to be allowed by order dated 01.12.2006 by opining that the property originally belong to father-in-law of petitioner and it is a joint family property and matter was remitted back to the Thasildar for adjudication afresh. As such, jurisdictional Thasildar adjudicated matter afresh and by order dated 29.05.2006 rejected the contentions of petitioner and upheld contentions of respondent No.4 to 8 herein vide Annexure-C. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed in R.A.(S)111/2006-07 which came to be allowed by order dated 01.12.2006 by second respondent opining that property originally belonged to father-in-law of petitioner and it is a joint family property. Being aggrieved by same, respondent No.4 herein filed R.P.No.213/2006-07 which has been allowed by order dated 27.01.2014- Annexure-A. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Having heard Sri. M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Chandrashekar P.V, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, Smt. P.V.Kalpana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 and Sri. Y.D.Harsha, Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit whatsoever in this petition and same is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself for the reasons indicated hereinbelow.
5. Records on hand would disclose that petitioner claiming share by virtue of her husband being member of the joint family of deceased Sri.Lakshmaiah (father-in-law of the petitioner) had filed a suit in O.S.No.111/1983 which resulted in a compromise petition being filed under Order XXIII and Rule 3 of CPC and pursuant to same a judgment and decree came to be drawn. It is based on said compromise decree, the jurisdictional Thasildar had effected the mutation entry namely, had mutated revenue records of subject land –M.R.No.29/2006-07. However, challenging the recording of compromise petition, petitioner herein filed one more suit namely O.S.No.640/2003 to declare the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.111/1983 as null and void. The claim made in the suit O.S.No.640/2003 came to be rejected by this Court in W.P.No.14233 and W.P.No.14294/2009 and order passed in writ petition is said to have attained finality. It the light of observations having been made while disposing of the writ petition, petitioner is said to have filed Misc.Case.No.75/2011 for recalling the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.111/1983. Same is said to be still pending.
6. It is well settled law that while exercising powers under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the revenue authorities would have no jurisdiction to decide title of the parties in respect of immovable properties. However, they would be entitled to mutate the revenue records on the basis of acquisition of rights of parties as contemplated under Section 128 which includes survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift etc., In the light of respondent Nos.4 to 9 having put up their claim on the basis of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.111/1983, the revenue authorities have rightly proceeded to mutate the revenue records as they are bound by the decree as prescribed under sub- Section (3) of Section 132 of the Act. It is because of this precise reason, Deputy Commissioner has opined and held that Assistant Commissioner could not have decided the title to the property by declaring that petitioner is a member of joint family. Said opinion expressed by the Assistant Commissioner was beyond his jurisdiction and has rightly been set aside by Deputy Commissioner by allowing the revision petition. The observations made therein is to the effect that entries made would be subject to the outcome of the decision that may be rendered in Miscellaneous Petition No.75/2011. Said finding deserves to be affirmed. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed subject to affirming the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner under the impugned order.
SD/- JUDGE RU