Smt Beeramma vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11466 Kant

                          1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                       PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A.No.693/2022(KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. BEERAMMA
W/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
KODIHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT - 561 230.                     ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI V. LAKSHMI NARAYANA SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI MUIZ AHMED KHAN USMANI, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       M.S. BUILDING
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
       BENGALURU - 560 009.

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
       DODDABALLAPUR - 561 203.
                             2

4.     THE TAHSILDAR
       DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
       DODDABALLAPUR - 561 203.

5.     THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
       KONAGHATTA CIRCLE
       KONAGHATTA, KASABA HOBLI
       DODDABALLAPUR TALUK.

6.     SHRI MUNIKALLAPPA
       S/O LATE SUBBANNA
       SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

6(a)   SMT. KRISHNAMMA
       W/O LATE MUNIKALLAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

7.     SMT. GANGAMMA
       W/O LATE RAMESHA
       D/O LATE MUNIKALLAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

8.     SHRI CHIKKEGOWDA
       S/O LATE MUNIKALLAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

       RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 8 ARE
       RESIDIN GAT KODIHALLI VILLAGE
       KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR
       TALUK - 561 203.

9.     SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
       W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
       D/O LATE MUNIKALLAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
       RESIDING AT VEERAPURA
       VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
       DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203.

10.    SMT. MEENAKSHI
       W/O NAGARAJA
       D/O LATE MUNIKALLAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
       RESIDING AT NEAR KANAKA
       TEMPLE, IST CROSS, IST MAIN
       RAMACHANDRAPPA LAYOUT
                               3

       PADMANABHANAGAR
       BENGALURU - 560 070.

11.    SHRI SUBBEGOWDA
       S/O LATE MUNIKALLAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
       RESIDING AT KODIHALLI
       VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
       DODDABALLAPUR TALUK.

12.    SHRI DODDABEERAPPA
       S/O LATE BYADARALLAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
       RESIDING AT KODIHALLI
       VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
       DODDABALLAPUR TALUK.                  ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, A.G.A, FOR R-1 TO R-5;
    SRI G.A. SHRIKANTE GOWDA, ADV., FOR C/R-8,
    R-11 & R-12)


       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, READ WITH RULE 27 OF THE

WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER DATED 23/06/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE

JUDGE IN WP NO.23143/2017 ON THE FILE OF HON BLE HIGH

COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE AS PRAYED FOR.


       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THIS   DAY,   VISHWAJITH      SHETTY   J.,   DELIVERED   THE

FOLLOWING:
                                 4

                       JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order

dated 23.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in W.P.No.23143/2017.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant and also perused the material

available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the

records for the purpose of disposal of this case are, in

proceedings bearing M.R.No.33/97-98, mutation order

was passed in favour of Munikalappa and Dodda

Beerappa in respect of land bearing Sy. No.200

measuring 4 acres 28 guntas situated at Konaghatta

village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk. The said

order was challenged by the appellant herein before the

Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section

136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for

short, 'the Act') and the said appeal was dismissed on

22.04.2002 upholding the mutation order made in favour

of Munikalappa and Dodda Beerappa in M.R.No.33/97-98

in respect of land bearing Sy. No.200. The appellant

herein had not challenged the said order passed by the

Assistant Commissioner, and therefore, the said order

dated 22.04.2002 had attained finality.

4. Subsequently, on the ground that a registered

gift deed dated 06.06.1960 has been executed in her

favour, the appellant had made an application seeking for

mutation of her name in the revenue records of the land

bearing Sy. No.200. The said application was rejected by

the Tahsildar vide his order dated 22.02.2010 (Annexure-

E). As against the said order, the appellant had preferred

an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act which was

allowed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order

passed by the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by

the Deputy Commissioner in the revision filed under

Section 136(3) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the orders

passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the

Deputy Commissioner dated 12.08.2013 and 24.03.2017,

respectively, the contesting private respondents herein

had filed W.P.No.23143/2017 which was allowed by the

learned Single Judge vide the order impugned dated

23.06.2022 and being aggrieved by the same,

respondent no.6 in the writ petition has preferred this

writ appeal.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant submits that the earlier order dated 22.04.2022

cannot be considered as res judicata in the revenue

proceedings, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was

not justified in allowing the writ petition. He submits that

the appellant has sought mutation of her name in respect

of the land bearing Sy. No.200 on the basis of the

registered gift deed, whereas the entries in favour of

Munikalappa and Dodda Beerappa were made under an

unregistered partition deed. He submits that the appeal

filed against the mutation order made in M.R.No.33/97-

98 was dismissed with an observation that the entries

would be subject to the result of O.S.No.57/1998, but the

appellant was not a party to the said suit nor Sy. No.200

was the subject matter of the said suit. In support of his

contentions, he has placed reliance on the decision of the

Full Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. JAYAMMA &

OTHERS VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & OTHERS - ILR

2020 KAR 1449 and the order dated 09.06.2022 passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C).No.10510/2022.

6. Under the proceedings bearing

M.R.No.33/97-98, mutation order was passed entering

the name of Munikalappa and Dodda Beerappa in the

revenue records of the land bearing Sy. No.200 and this

order was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant

herein in an appeal filed under Section 136(2) of the Act

before the Assistant Commissioner and the said appeal

was dismissed on 22.04.2002 and the said order,

undisputedly, has attained finality.

7. Thereafter, on the basis of the gift deed stated

to have been executed in her favour on 06.06.1960, she

has made an application before the Tahsildar for

mutating her name in the revenue records of the land

bearing Sy. No.200 and the said application was

dismissed by the Tahsildar on 22.02.2010, wherein he

has referred to the earlier order dated 22.04.2002

passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Without

appreciating this aspect of the matter, the Assistant

Commissioner had allowed the appeal filed by the

appellant herein and directed the revenue authorities to

enter her name in the revenue records of the land

bearing Sy. No.200 on the strength of the gift deed dated

06.06.1960 and the said order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner was confirmed by the Deputy

Commissioner.

8. The learned Single Judge taking into

consideration that the earlier order dated 22.04.2002

passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-D

had attained finality, has held that the Assistant

Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were not

justified in entertaining the claim of the appellant herein

to mutate her name in respect of Sy. No.200 on the

strength of the gift deed dated 06.06.1960.

9. According to the appellant, the gift deed is dated

06.06.1960, and therefore, the said deed was in

existence as on 22.04.2002 when the appeal filed by the

appellant herein challenging the mutation order passed in

favour of Munikalappa and Dodda Beerappa in respect of

land bearing Sy. No.200 was dismissed. Therefore, on

the basis of the said gift deed dated 06.06.1960, it was

not open for the appellant to seek re-opening of the

mutation proceedings before the Tahsildar. The learned

Single Judge having appreciated this aspect of the

matter, has rightly allowed the writ petition and quashed

the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the

Deputy Commissioner dated 12.08.2013 and 24.03.2017

at Annexures-F & J, respectively, with an observation

that in the event the appellant approaches the Civil Court

for a declaration and obtains a declaration in respect of

the land in question, the revenue entries which are now

ordered to be restored in the name of the contesting

private respondents herein, shall abide by the result of

the said decree. We find no good reason to interfere with

the said order passed by the learned Single Judge.

10. The judgments relied upon by the learned

Senior Counsel for the appellant would not apply to the

facts and circumstances of the present case and it is trite

law that judgments can be relied as precedents only in

the event they are applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the writ appeal is

dismissed.

SD/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

JUDGE