IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. S. DINESH KUMAR Writ Petition No.35469/2017 (klr-res) BETWEEN:
SRI T.N.RAJAGOPAL, S/O T.N.NARAYANNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, MASTENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 563 125. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI KARTHIK B.Y, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR, DC OFFICE, DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX, SIDLAGHATTA ROAD, CHIKBALLAPUR – 562 101.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSINER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101.
3. SMT ANJINAMMA, W/O LATE CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, MASTENAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE:563 125. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, AGA. FOR R-1 & R-2, R-3 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN RA.82/2014-2015 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR DATED 24.07.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 DISMISSED THE SAID APPEAL HOLDING THAT, THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THIS PETITION IS ILLEGAL/VOID AND THE PETITIONER SHALL APPROACH THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, IF HE HAD RIGHT OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, VIDE ANNX- K AND ORDER DTD 17.12.2014 PASSED BY THE ASSIT COMMISSIONER ALLOWING APPLICATION OF THE R-3 THERE CANCELING MUTATION OF THIS PETITIONER I.S., MUTATION REGISTER NO.114-14/1995-1996, 22/1995- 1996 AND 114-78/1999-2000 AND DIRECTING TO CHANGE THE REVENUE RECORDS IN FAVOUR/NAME OF THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY THE APPLICATION OF THE R-3 THEREBY CANCELING MUTATION OF THIS PETITIONER I.E., MUTATION REGISTER NO.114-14/1995-1996, 22/1995-1996 AND 114-78/1999-2000 AND DIRECTING TO CHANGE THE REVENUE RECORDS IN FAVOUR/NAME OF THE R-3 AS NULL AND ANNX-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Karthik, learned advocate for petitioner and Sri Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Though served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.3.
2. Learned advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner’s father purchased land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.144 (Old Sy.No.36) situated at Masthenahalli Village, Kaiwara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, under registered Sale Deed dated 25.05.1995 from Sri Chinnappa (husband of respondent No.3). Petitioner’s father’s name was entered in the revenue records as per M.R.No.114- 14/1995-96. After his father’s death, petitioner applied to the Tahasildar to enter his name in the revenue records. As per M.R.No.114-78/1999-2000, petitioner’s name was entered in the revenue records.
3. Respondent No.3 filed O.S.No.139/2005 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., Chintamani, for declaration of title and to set aside the sale of property in the name of the petitioner’s father. Parties entered into a compromise and respondent No.3 conceded to petitioner’s ownership. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 07.12.2005.
4. After disposal of the suit, respondent No.3 again approached the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.365/2006-07. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 17.12.2014 directed to enter the name respondent No.3 in the revenue record based on a deed of family arrangement dated 13.12.1989. Petitioner challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner contending that rights of the parties have been decided in O.S.No.139/2005. However, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 24.07.2017 dismissed the appeal and held that petitioner can work out his remedy before the appropriate authority. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned advocate for petitioner urged that the claim of respondent No.3 for declaration of title and also cancellation of the Sale Deed in favour of petitioner’s father has been decided in O.S.No.395/2005. Therefore, the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner are unsustainable in law.
6. Sri Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate argued opposing the petition.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
8. Undisputed facts of the case are, the name of petitioner’s father was entered in the revenue record pursuant to the Sale Deed executed by husband of respondent No.3 – Sri Chinnappa. Respondent No.3 sought to impeach the said Sale Deed and also sought for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the property in question in O.S.No.395/2005. But subsequently, she has given up her claim as per the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2005 passed in the civil suit. Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner to enter 3rd respondent’s name in terms of family settlement deed after the judgment and decree passed in the year 2005 is unsustainable in law. For the same reason, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is also unsustainable. Resultantly, petition merits consideration. Hence, the following:
ORDER Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner are set aside. Petitioner’s name shall be entered in the revenue records.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS