IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.3559 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI LOKESH SON OF ASHWATAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT: JINKKE TIMMANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 036. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI: SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI ADI MURTHY SON OF LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.94 CHANNASANDRA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 061.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009.
5. THE TASILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR R2 TO R5; SRI: VARUN J. PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI: A. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV. FOR C/R1 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.10474 OF 2019 (KLR-RES), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.10474 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the second respondent in R.P.No.361 of 2014-15 by restoring the revenue entries made by the third respondent and directing that the entries continue subject to the result of suit in O.S.No.15 of 2012, respondent No.5 therein has filed this appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. That the learned Single Judge committed an error in restoring the revenue entries made by the third respondent, Assistant Commissioner.
3. Pursuant to the General Power of Attorney executed, the agent on behalf of the principal has executed the sale deed dated 02.12.2011 in terms of Annexure-C. In terms whereof, the writ petitioner who is the purchaser filed an application seeking for mutation of revenue records in his name. Objections have been filed by the appellant herein on the ground that he had filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 2011 to declare the sale deed as null and void. Considering the objections, the respondent No.4 therein rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the dispute relating to the said property can be adjudicated before the Civil Court.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3 therein. On hearing both sides, the respondent No.3 therein ordered for transfer of revenue records in the name of the writ petitioner by setting aside the order of respondent No.4 therein. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed a revision petition. The Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 26.02.2019, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Tahsildar. Questioning the same, the instant writ petition was filed.
5. The learned Single Judge on considering the various materials on record rightly came to the conclusion that the revenue entries as ordered by respondent No.3 should continue on record until and unless the suit is decreed. Ultimately the plea of the writ petitioner as well as the appellant requires to be agitated in the suit that has already been instituted. Therefore, we find no good grounds to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge.
Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
None of the observations made by the learned Single Judge or by this Court shall have a bearing in the decision to be rendered by the Trial Court.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-