IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.26081/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN SRI P. MAHADEVAPPA, DEAD BY HIS LR’S, SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT MALLAGALLI VILLAGE, YELLANDUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI V.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJNAGAR 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB - DIVISION KOLLEGAL 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR NADAKACHERI AGARA HOBLI YELANDUR TALUK 4. M .P. KANTHARAJU S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT MALLAGALLI VILLAGE AGERE HOBLI YELANDUR TALUK CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR.T.L, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI U.M.JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY R1 DATED 12.12.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 12.12.2011 passed in RA.No.27/2009-2010 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. The grievance of petitioner is that land bearing Sy.No.322 of Kestur village, Yelandur Taluk, measuring to an extent of 2 acres out of 6 acres 10 guntas was the absolute property of his grand father, late Mahantadeva, which has come to the share of petitioner’s father. According to him, 4th respondent – Kantharaju, who is none other than the cousin brother of petitioner, got conveyed the aforesaid land to his name by getting a Will executed in his favour. Thereafter, on the basis of said Will it is stated that revenue entries to the land in question were mutated in the name of 4th respondent by 3rd respondent, which was subject matter of appeal before 2nd respondent, wherein 2nd respondent by order dated 9.2.2009 allowed the appeal and ordered for restoration of the revenue entries to the name of petitioner.
3. It is stated that when the order passed by 2nd respondent was subject matter of revision before 1st respondent at the instance of 4th respondent herein, 1st respondent allowed the proceeding before him by order dated 12.12.2011 in No.RA.27/2009-10 in setting aside the order passed by 2nd respondent and further observed that in the light of judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of C.N.Nagendra Singh –vs- the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District & Ors., reported in ILR 2002 KAR 2750 any dispute with reference to the property/land involved in a Will is required to be challenged in Civil Court with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the same.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order this Court find that no grounds are made out to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by 1st respondent. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. While doing so, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a civil suit wherein he/she is entitled to seek restoration of the entries as it stood prior to bequest made in favour of 4th respondent under the Will said to have been executed by the father of petitioner and the said entry shall be subject to the final result in the original suit to be initiated on civil side.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-