Atmanand S/O Basappa Angadi vs Iresh S/O Basappa Anchatageri
2022 Latest Caselaw 6281 Kant

                                                 -1-




                                                         WA No. 100121 of 2022


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                                              PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                                                AND
                              THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
                             WRIT APPEAL NO. 100121 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
                      BETWEEN:

                           ATMANAND S/O BASAPPA ANGADI
                           AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                           R/O. DASANAKOPPA, TQ. DHARWAD,
                           DIST. DHARWAD 580105.

                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. GIRISH A YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   IRESH S/O BASAPPA ANCHATAGERI
                           AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
                           R/O. VAISHNAVI MARATHA COLONY,
                           MALAPUR ROAD, DHARWAD 580006.

                      2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD
                           D C COMPOUND, DHARWAD,
                           DIST. DHARWAD 580001.

JAGADISH              3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DHARWAD
TR                         DIST. DHARWAD 580001.

Digitally signed by
                      4.   THE TAHASILDAR DHARWAD
JAGADISH T R               DIST. DHARWAD 580001.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad                                                        ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI.K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
                      (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R2 TO R4)
                                -2-




                                           WA No. 100121 of 2022


     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP.NO.116791/2019 DATED
23.02.2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                           JUDGMENT

The appellant, who was respondent No.4 in the writ

proceedings has assailed the order of the learned Single

Judge in WP No.116791/2019 dated 23.02.2022, whereby

the learned Single Judge has set-aside the order passed in

RP No.35/2019 and consequently, directed to enter the

revenue entries in the name of the petitioner before the writ

Court.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks

before the learned Single Judge for the purpose of

convenience.

3. Admitted facts being that the petitioner was the

purchaser of the property bearing Sy.No.2/1P-P1 measuring

6 acres 20 guntas through registered sale deed executed on

20.3.2018 and later registered on 15.6.2018. The petitioner

upon approaching the revenue authorities for changing the

mutation entries on the basis of the sale deed, respondent

WA No. 100121 of 2022

No.4 objected to such transfer of revenue entries on the

ground that the sale deed was nominal sale deed intended to

secure a loan and that RFA No.833/2013 was pending before

this Court and respondent No.4 and another litigant in which

title to the property which was the subject matter of the sale

deed was an issue.

4. The Tahsildar having rejected the application by

order dated 19.11.2018, the same came to be challenged

before the appellate Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner,

who allowed the appeal and directed to enter the revenue

entries in the name of the petitioner, same came to be

challenged by way of revision under Section 136(3) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Deputy

Commissioner, who allowed the revision petition relegating

the parties to the Civil Court. The said order came to be

challenged before the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid

writ petition, who after a detailed consideration and by a

reasoning contained at para-7, allowed the writ petition

setting aside the order in RP No.35/2019 and directing the

revenue entries to be made in the name of the petitioner.

WA No. 100121 of 2022

5. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 is

before this Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

appellant/respondent No.4 submits that OS No.14/2020 has

been filed seeking to set-aside the sale deed dated

20.03.2018, which suit is pending before the Principal Senior

Civil Judge & CJM, Dharwad, and that if proceedings in the

suit are allowed to conclude and sale deed is set aside,

respondent No.4 would be prejudiced at present if revenue

entry is entered at this point of time without waiting for the

outcome of the said suit.

7. It is also pointed out that RFA No.833/2013 came

to be compromised conferring title upon respondent No.4

and that were to be so, the revenue authority cannot enter

into the correctness of the judgment and decree passed in

RFA No.833/2013 and accordingly, submits that the

approach of the learned Single Judge is erroneous.

8. It is further contended that the observation of the

learned Single Judge that respondent No.4 having executed

sale deed dated 20.3.2018 could not have entered into a

WA No. 100121 of 2022

settlement in RFA No.833/2013 without getting the sale deed

dated 20.03.2018, set aside is a erroneous observation as

the writ Court while exercising power of judicial review as

regards orders of revenue authority ought not to enter into

aspects of title. The judgment in Anjinappa and Others

Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore

District and Others, reported in 2020 (2) Kar.L.J. 367

has been relied upon.

9. Heard the learned counsel Sri. K.L.Patil who has

opposed the relief sought for by the appellant and submits

that the approach of the learned Single Judge is consistent

with scheme under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and

once there is a registered instrument that has placed before

the revenue authority, revenue authority has no discretion to

go beyond it and to proceed for making revenue entry in

terms of the registered document.

10. Heard both sides.

11. The learned Single Judge has observed that the

sale deed dated 20.03.2018 requires to be followed and

revenue entries being ought to be effected in terms of the

WA No. 100121 of 2022

said registered instrument. This is the correct position of law

insofar as the scheme under Sections 129 and 129 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act would envisage the reporting of

the acquisition of title and consequent effecting revenue

entry. Infact, once a registered instrument is placed before

the revenue authority, the revenue authority has no

discretion in effecting entry in terms of the registered

documents. It is also relevant to note that though RFA

No.833/2013 was pending consideration earlier to the order

of the Tahsildar no order was passed in the said appeal

proceeding restraining respondent No.4 from making use of

whatever rights they enjoyed. It is also relevant to note that

regular first appeal came to be compromised on 3.3.2020,

while the final order of the Deputy Commissioner in the

revision proceedings came to the passed on 12.11.2019.

Accordingly, any order passed in the appeal by way of

compromise resulting in conferment of title in favour of 4th

respondent was only subsequent to the conclusion of all

proceeding as available under the hierarchy of redressal as

provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

WA No. 100121 of 2022

12. No doubt respondent No.4 has filed OS

No.14/2020 before the trial Court seeking to set aside the

sale deed executed by respondent No.4.

Needless to say the judgment and decree passed in OS

No.14/2020, once, it attains finality, is an order that is

required to be taken note of by the Revenue Authority to

make appropriate entry consequent to the declaration made

in the civil proceedings.

13. Apprehension regarding misuse of revenue entry

by the parties as made out by the learned counsel for

respondent No.4 may not be reason enough to intervene in

this matter, insofar as the civil court is ceased of the matter.

Accordingly, we find no reasons to intervene with the well

considered order of the learned Single Judge. However, we

would reiterate that the observations made by the learned

Single ought to be construed to be limited to disposal to the

challenge to the order by the revenue authority and no

observation made regarding title of the parties including the

title of respondent No.4 in RFA No.833/2013 is to be taken

to be conclusive finding. The rights and contention of the

WA No. 100121 of 2022

parties are pending adjudication before the Civil Court, which

would be ultimate arbiter of title dispute. It is the contention

of respondent No.4 that on an earlier occasion injunctory

relief was sought for before the Civil Court and that

injunction was refused on the ground that the revenue entry

continued with respondent No.4. However, that by itself

would not disentitle respondent No.4 in asserting his right as

per law in the pending proceedings. We do not intend to

enter into the contentions including rights relating to title of

the parties, in the present proceedings and hence, and

restrain from making any observation in that regard.

14. Accordingly, appeal is disposed off subject to the

above observations. Pending applications, if any, do not

survive for consideration, and accordingly, they are disposed

off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR/VMB