IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.6266 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA AGED 51 YEARS SON OF LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA 2. SHRI. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA @ DHOOMAPPA 3. SMT. GURAMMA AGED 86 YEARS WIFE OF LATE NANJAPPA ALL APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.R OMKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU -560 009.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION K.G.ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU -560 009.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.
4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR NADA KACHERI SARJAPURA HOBLI, SARJAPURA ANEKAL TALUK-562 125.
5. SRI C M SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SON OF C.G.MUNISWAMY CHAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562 125 BENGALURU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4) ... RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THAT PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 18/08/2017, PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.3120/2017 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT, DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO REGARDING THE REVENUE ENTRIES TILL THE JUDGMENT IS RENDERED BY THE CIVIL COURT IN O.S. 400/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3120 of 2017, by which the petition was disposed off directing all parties to maintain status quo regarding the revenue entries till the judgment is rendered by the Civil Court, the writ petitioners are in appeal.
2. The petitioners filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order bearing No.R.P.10/2016-2017 dated 17.12.2016 passed by the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 17.12.2016 allowed the revision filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of land measuring 4 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.128, situated at Chambenahalli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District as they claim under one late Kaka alias Kakappa. It is stated that the said Kaka alias Kakappa is said have purchased the above stated land in public auction as per D.D.No.2/1928-1929. The Special Deputy Commissioner initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act, wherein the petitioners got themselves impleaded. The Special Deputy Commissioner after enquiry by order dated 03.07.2015 held that the land in question was originally purchased by Kaka alias Kakappa through public auction in the year 1928-29. Subsequently, the name of one Sri C.G.Muniswamy - father of the 5th respondent was effected in katha. The petitioners challenged the mutation entry in respect of Sy.No.128 measuring 4 acres 16 guntas as per M.R.No.37/2007-2008 before the Assistant Commissioner. Based on the earlier orders, the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 04.04.2016 held that the land was purchased by Kaka alias Kakappa in public auction and mutation was effected in his name since 1969- 1970 and further held that the entries in the name of Sri C.G.Muniswamy, was without affording an opportunity and observed that the entries made in favour of Channappa or Perumaiah under whom Sri C.G.Muniswamy claims was set aside, direction was issued to effect mutation entry in the name of legal representatives of Kaka alias Kakappa. The said order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner contending that the appeal had been disposed off by the Assistant Commissioner hurriedly and requires consideration. The Deputy Commissioner only on the said ground remanded the matter holding that it requires fresh consideration. The order of the Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration, was the subject matter of the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge on considering the writ petition set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the revenue entries till the judgment is rendered in O.S.No.400 of 2016 by the Civil Court. Aggrieved by that portion of the order directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the revenue entries till the judgment is rendered in the original suit, the writ petitioners are in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to revenue entries having set aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner. It is his further submission that directing the parties to maintain status quo is nothing but allowing an unlawful revenue entry to continue. When the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that Kaka alias Kakappa had a valid title to the property, the learned Single Judge could not have directed status quo in respect of revenue entries. Thus he prays for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submits that as the suit filed by 5th respondent is pending consideration, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed to maintain status quo with regard to revenue entries, hence he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. The petitioners claim to be legal heirs of one late Kaka alias Kakappa, who purchased land measuring 4 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.128 situated at Chambenahalli, Anekal Taluk in a public auction as per D.D.No.2/1928-29. Subsequently in a suo moto proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Act, by order dated 03.07.2015 it was held that Kaka alias Kakappa had purchased the land in question in public auction in the year 1928-1929. The revenue entries continued in the name of Kaka alias Kakappa till 2007-2008. Sri C.G.Muniswamy - father of the 5th respondent appears to have claimed the property under gift deed dated 31.5.2008 and entries were changed to his name. Those entries were challenged by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 04.04.2016 based on the earlier order dated 03.07.2015 held that Kaka alias Kakappa had purchased the land in public auction and his name continued in the revenue records for long time. In the absence of any alienation, the entry of the name of Sri C.G.Muniswamy in the revenue records was held not proper and was set aside directing the entry of names of the petitioners. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is the subject matter of the instant writ petition. On going through the appeal papers it is seen that the Assistant Commissioner has categorically held that Kaka alias Kakappa had purchased the land in question in a public auction in the year 1928-1929, hence his name continued in the revenue records till 2007-2008. The father of the 5th respondent claimed by virtue of a gift deed dated 31.05.2008 and mutation entry was made in his favour, which was challenged by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rightly set aside the said entry directing the entry of the names of the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner on appeal set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter for fresh consideration only on the ground that the appeal is decided within one month. Disposal of a matter in an expeditious manner cannot be a ground to set aside the order. In such disposal if there is denial of opportunity to any of the parties then that would be a ground to allow the appeal. When the Assistant Commissioner has passed the order by following the due procedure and in accordance with law, in an expeditious manner, no exception could be made. It is stated that the 5th respondent has already filed O.S.No.400 of 2016 before the Civil Court for declaration of title over the land in question. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 03.07.2015 vide Annexure-A had rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners’ predecessor-in-title - Kaka alias Kakappa had purchased the land in public auction and therefore, the mutation shows the names of the petitioners. The learned Single Judge is right in directing the parties to maintain status- quo regarding the revenue entries, when there was rival claims regarding title and when the civil suit is pending. The order of the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous. The learned Single Judge has passed a well reasoned order which warrants no interference. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG