Sri Mallappa Satyappa Kumbar vs The Deputy Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 3037 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

                       BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

        WRIT PETITION NO. 30637/2008 (KLR)
BETWEEN:

SRI.MALLAPPA SATYAPPA KUMBAR
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MADAMAKKANAL - 591 309
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

1(a) TANGEWWA, W/O. MALLAPPA KUMBAR
     AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
     R/O. ARJUNWAD 591 309
     TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.

1(b) RATNAWWA DUNDAPPA KUMBER
     AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
     R/O. ARJUNWAD 591 309
     TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.

1(c) RUDRAPPA MALLAPPA KUMBAR
     AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
     R/O. MADAMAKANAL 591 309
     TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.

1(d) SUVARNA BHIMU KUMBAR
     AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
     R/O. NASALAPUR
     TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.
                                        W.P.No.30637/2008

                             2




1(e) SHAILA MAHALINGAPPA KUMBAR
     AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
     R/O. RABAKAVI
     TQ: BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

1(f)   LAXMI PRAKSH KUMBAR
       AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
       R/O. AMINABHAVI
       TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.
                                        ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.B S KAMATE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BELGAUM 590 001.

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       BELGAUM SUB DIVISION
       BELGAUM 590 001.

3.     THE TAHASHILDAR
       HUKKERI 591 309
       DIST.BELGAUM

4.     MALLAPPA NAGAPPA KUMBAR
       OCC:AGRICULTURE
       R/O. MADAMAKKANAL 591 309
       TQ. HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM

5.     NINGAPPA FAKKIRAPPA MAGADUM
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC AGRICULTURE
       R/O MADAMAKKANAL 591 309
       TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM
                                                  W.P.No.30637/2008

                                3



6.   GANGUBAI, W/O DUNDAPPA KUMBAR
     AGE: MAJOR
     R/O ARJUNWAD VILLAGE 591 309
     TQ; HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. K. BASAVARAJ, AGA FOR R1 O R3;
    SRI. MANJUNATH MELED, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R6;
    SRI. SHIVARAJ BALLOLI & RAMESH I ZIRALI, ADVOCATE
     FOR R5)
                            ---

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QAUSH THE
IMPUGNED     ORDER      DATED     03.04.2008    BEARING
                                          ST
NO.RB/RTA/430/2006-07 PASSED BY THE 1        RESPONDENT
INSOFAR AS DIRECTING TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS IS CONCERNED,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-'D'.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3.

2. The brief facts of the case that would be

relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are;

The petitioner was the absolute owner in

possession of the land bearing survey No.91/1 totally

measuring 5 acres 38 guntas of Madamakanal village W.P.No.30637/2008

Hukkeri taluk. It is the case of the petitioner that, he

had inherited to the said property by succession. On

the ground that the petitioner's brother had executed a

sale deed dated 07.02.2002 in respect of a portion of

the aforesaid land measuring 1 acre 39 guntas, the 4 t h

respondent herein had filed an application before the

3 r d respondent Tahasildar with a prayer to enter his

name in the revenue records of the said property

measuring 1 acre 39 guntas. Considering the same, the

Tahasildar had ordered to enter the name of the 4 t h

respondent in the revenue records of the land bearing

survey No.91/1 measuring 1 are 39 guntas. Being

aggrieved by the same, petitioner had filed an appeal

under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLR Act', for

short) before the Assistant Commissioner, Belagavi

Sub-Division, and the said appeal was allowed on

31.03.2003.

Aggrieved by the same, the 4 t h respondent had

filed a Revision Petition before the Deputy W.P.No.30637/2008

Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed

the said Revision vide order dated 07.06.2004, which

was carried by the 4 t h respondent before this Court in

W.P.No.33804/2004 and even the said Writ Petition was

dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2004.

Subsequently, the petitioner herein had sold an extent

of land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in survey No.91/1

out of 5 acre 38 guntas in favour of the 5 t h respondent

herein under a registered sale deed dated 08.06.2004.

Thereafterwards, at the request of the 5 t h respondent,

the entries in respect of the land bearing survey

No.91/1 to the extent measuring 3 acres 20 guntas was

changed in his name by the Tahasildar. Challenging the

same, the 4th respondent herein has preferred an

appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and the

Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 05.01.2007

had set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar dated

24.02.2006.

As against the said order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner, the 5 t h respondent herein had filed a W.P.No.30637/2008

Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner

under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act and the Deputy

Commissioner vide the order impugned in this writ

petition had allowed the Revision Petition and directed

the Tahasildar to enter the name of the 5 t h respondent

herein insofar as it relates to an extent of 3 acres 20

guntas in survey No.91/1 and also directed to enter the

name of the 4 t h respondent in the revenue records of

the land bearing survey No.91/1 to the extent of 1 acre

39 guntas. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said

order to the extent it relates directing the Tahasildar to

enter the name of the 4 t h respondent in the revenue

records of the land bearing survey No.91/1, has

approached this court.

3. I have considered the rival arguments and

also perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that, this Court in the earlier round of litigation has

already dismissed the W.P.No.33804/2004 filed by the W.P.No.30637/2008

respondent No.4, wherein he had challenged the orders

passed by the Revenue Authorities, who had rejected

his request to enter his name in the revenue records of

the land in question to the extent measuring 1 acre 39

guntas on the strength of the alleged sale deed said to

have been executed by the brother of the petitioner

herein. He also submits that, since his brother had no

right to execute the sale deed in favour of the 4 t h

respondent herein, he had filed O.S.No.51/2002,

seeking a decree of declaration of petitioner's title and

also possession over the property, which was sold by

the petitioner's brother in favour of the 4 t h respondent

herein and alternatively a prayer was also made to

direct the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect

of the said item of land in favour of the petitioner

herein. He submits that, suit has been partly decreed

and the 4 t h respondent herein has been directed to

execute the sale deed in respect of the land purchased

by him measuring 1 acre 39 guntas in favour of the

petitioner herein and the said decree has also been W.P.No.30637/2008

confirmed in R.A.No.307/2010 vide judgment and

decree dated 17.08.2011. He fairly submits that, there

is a Regular Second Appeal filed against the concurrent

findings and the said appeal is pending before this

Court.

5. From the material available on record, it is

clear that the 4 t h respondent herein, on the strength of

the sale deed executed by the brother of the petitioner

in his favour in respect of the land bearing survey

No.91/1 measuring 1 are 39 guntas, had earlier filed an

application seeking change of entries in the revenue

records and since the Revenue Authorities had refused

to enter his name having regard to the objections

raised by the petitioner herein, he had approached this

Court challenging the order passed by the Revenue

Authorities in W.P.No.33804/2004. the said Writ

Petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

04.10.2004 and the orders passed by the Revenue

Authorities refusing to enter the name of the 4th W.P.No.30637/2008

respondent in respect of the land said to have been

purchased by him from the brother of the petitioner had

attained finality. When that being the position, the

Deputy Commissioner, exercising his revisional

jurisdiction in a dispute relating to entry of the revenue

records in respect of the land which was sold by the

petitioner herein in favour of the 5th respondent

measuring 3 acres 20 guntas, ought not have directed

the Tahasildar to enter the name of the 4 t h respondent

in survey No.91/1 to an extent of 1 acre 39 guntas.

The subject matter of the Revision Petition before the

Deputy Commissioner was only the land measuring 3

acres 20 guntas, which was sold by the petitioner to

the 5 t h respondent.

6. Therefore, when this Court had earlier

rejected the case of the 4 t h respondent to enter his

name in the revenue records of the land in dispute on

the strength of the sale deed said to have been

executed in his favour by the brother of the petitioner, W.P.No.30637/2008

to an extent of land measuring 1 acre 39 guntas, the

Deputy Commissioner was not justified in directing the

Tahasildar to enter the name of the 4 t h respondent in

the revenue records of the said land bearing survey

No.91/1 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas. In addition to the

same, in a civil suit filed by the petitioner herein, there

is a decree passed against respondent No.4 to execute

the sale deed in respect of the very same item of land

in favour of the petitioner herein after receiving

consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner

herein and the said judgment and decree has been

confirmed in the Regular Appeal.

7. Without considering all these aspects of the

matter, the Deputy Commissioner in a mechanical

manner, while directing the Tahasildar to enter the

name of the 5 t h respondent in the revenue records of

the land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in the very same

survey number, has also directed the Tahasildar to

enter the name of the 4 t h respondent to an extent W.P.No.30637/2008

measuring 1 acre 39 guntas. In my considered opinion,

the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner

insofar it relates to directing the Tahasildar to enter the

name of the 4 t h respondent in survey No.91/1 to an

extent measuring 1 acre 39 guntas is bad in law and

legally unsustainable and accordingly the same is liable

to be set aside. Hence I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Writ Petition is allowed.

The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner

dated 03.04.2008 vide Annexure-D, insofar as it relates

to directing the 3 r d respondent to enter the name of the

4th respondent in the revenue records of the land

bearing survey No.91/1 of Madamakanal village,

Hukkeri Taluk, is quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

g ab