Karnataka High Court
Sri. M Siddappa vs The Tahasildar on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29940
WP No. 8896 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.8896 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M.SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIBEERAPPA
RESIDING AT
CHANDAPURA VILLAGE
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 560 099
(NOT CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN)
2. SRI. M.SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIBEERAPPA
RESIDING AT
Digitally signed CHANDRAPURA VILLAGE
by ALBHAGYA
ANEKAL TALUK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU RURAL DISRICT
KARNATAKA PIN - 560 099
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE TAHASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
ANEKAL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29940
WP No. 8896 of 2024
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 562 106
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT TO IMPLEMENT THE COURT DECREE PASSED
BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT SIT AT ANEKAL IN RA NO.5047/2015 DATED
27/03/2018 (MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B) BY ENTERING THE NAMES
OF THE PETITIONERS IN ALL REVENUE RECORDS AS OWNERS
OF THE LANDS IN SY. NO.1/2 MEASURING 21 GUNTAS AND
SY. NO.58/1 MEASURING 39.08 GUNTAS OF CHANDAPURA
VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AND
GRANT THE PETITIONERS SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEFS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, in this writ petition, have approached the Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, the Tahasildar, to mutate their names in the revenue records pursuant to a decree granted by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.5047/2015. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29940 WP No. 8896 of 2024
2. Petitioners assert that the Appellate Court has ruled in their favor, declaring them the absolute owners of the property in question and permanently restraining the defendants from interfering with their lawful possession.
3. The background of the case reveals that the Appellate Court, through a judgment and decree, declared the petitioners to be the rightful owners of the disputed property. The Assistant Commissioner, acting on this judgment, directed the Tahasildar to comply with the Appellate Court's order and effectuate the mutation of the petitioners' names in the official records. However, despite this clear directive, the Tahasildar has failed to act, demonstrating a lack of diligence and adherence to the Court's decree. This Court expressed concern over the recurring trend of revenue officials failing to comply with decrees issued by competent Civil Courts. This Court emphasized that when a party succeeds in obtaining a decree from a competent Civil Court, it is the mandatory duty of the Revenue Authorities to implement such -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29940 WP No. 8896 of 2024 decrees without delay. The Court noted with dismay the apparent reluctance and failure of the Tahasildar to fulfill this obligation, which constitutes a serious dereliction of duty.
4. The failure of Revenue Officers to give effect to decrees passed by Civil Courts has significant adverse impacts on citizens and the judicial system. When these Officials neglect to implement Court orders, it not only undermines the authority and efficacy of the judiciary but also erodes public trust in the legal system. For citizens, this dereliction of duty can result in prolonged legal battles, undue stress, and financial burden, as they must resort to further litigation to enforce their rights. Moreover, the constitutional Courts become unnecessarily overburdened with cases seeking enforcement of decrees, diverting their attention from other pressing legal issues. This inefficiency clogs the judicial pipeline and delays justice, contradicting the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. It is imperative that once a decree is -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29940 WP No. 8896 of 2024 passed, especially when no stay has been obtained, it must be promptly and faithfully executed aligning with procedure contemplated under Section 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
5. In the present case, the petitioners have provided a copy of the judgment and decree from the Appellate Court, which unequivocally declares them as the owners of the property. The Court stated that the Revenue Authorities are obliged to recognize and implement such decrees, and any failure to do so undermines the Authority of the judiciary and the rule of law. While this case clearly warranted the imposition of exemplary costs on the respondent - Tahasildar for his negligence, the Court is persuaded by the learned Additional Government Advocate to adopt a lenient approach. The AGA assured the Court that the decree of the Appellate Court would be implemented without further delay.
6. Based on the submission and assurance provided by the learned AGA, this Court issued the following; -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29940 WP No. 8896 of 2024 ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondent - Tahasildar is directed to comply with the decree issued by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.5047/2015 dated 27.03.2018, as detailed in Annexure-B of the petition. The Tahasildar shall ensure that the appropriate changes are made in the revenue records by mutating the names of the petitioners as the rightful owners of the property, in accordance with the judgment and decree rendered in R.A.No.5047/2015.
(iii) The respondent - Tahasildar is instructed to complete this process within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7