Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ramachandrappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 February, 2022
Bench: S.Sujatha, Ravi V Hosmani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
W.A.No.583/2020 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O GUNDU NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT JILAKARAPALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 307.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAVEEN J.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
BAGEPALLI TALUK
BAGEPALLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
4. G.N.NARASIMHAPPA
S/O GADDAM NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT VALIMIKINAGAR
2
GULUR ROAD, BAGEPALLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, A.G.A., FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. S. SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APEEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 30.09.2020 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT MADE IN W.P.NO.24520/2013 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL
ACCORDINGLY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAVI V.
HOSMANI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment dated 30.09.2020 passed by
learned Single Judge in W.P.24520/2013, this appeal is
filed.
2. Appellant was petitioner, while respondents herein
were respondents in writ petition. For sake of convenience,
they shall be hereinafter referred to as per their ranks in
writ petition.
3. It was stated that petitioner's father Narasimhappa
along with Peddaramaiah purchased 1 Acre 27½ guntas of
land in Sy.No.291 of Kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli taluk under
registered sale deed dated 27.03.1967 from original village
office holders i.e., Gaddam Venkatappa and Narasimhappa.
It was further stated that he was in possession of an extent
of 03 Acres 14 guntas of land in Sy.No.291 under
agreement of sale dated 17.03.1967 executed by Gaddam
Venkatappa, pending registration of sale deed until after
order of re-grant. As such, he was in possession of total
extent of 05 acres 02 guntas in Sy.No.291 and revenue
entries stood in his name upto 1994. Thereafter, his name
was discontinued in RTC extract on the ground that land
was re-granted. It was further stated that in view of
decision of this Court in Lakshmana Gowda Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 1981 KLJ 1 and in Syed Bhasheer
Ahmed and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in
ILR 1994 Kar. 159, interest of purchasers of Inam land
between 01.03.1963 and 07.08.1978 was protected and
tahasildar passed an order of re-grant dated 17.03.2001 in
respect of 05 acres 02 guntas.
4. Thereafter when respondent no.4 made application
to respondent no.3 for effecting khata in his name without
appreciating fact that when petitioner's father was in
possession, revenue records were mutated deleting name of
petitioner's father. Questioning same, an appeal was filed
before respondent no.2 - Assistant Commissioner.
Respondent no.2 by applying principles of law laid down in
Lakshman Gowda and Syed Bhasheer Ahmed cases,
allowed appeal and set aside order passed by respondent
no.3.
5. Aggrieved by said order, respondent no.4 filed
appeal before respondent no.1 - Deputy Commissioner.
Respondent no.1 failed to appreciate facts of case in proper
perspective and after setting aside order of Assistant
Commissioner directed respondent no.3 - Tahsildar to effect
name of respondent no.4 in respect of Sy.no.291 to an
extent of 03 acres 14½ guntas and to enter name of
petitioner only to an extent of 01 acre 27½ guntas.
6. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed
W.P.no.24520/2013 before this Court. Learned Single
Judge, however, dismissed writ petition on ground that no
interference was called for.
7. Sri. Naveen J.N., learned counsel for appellant
submitted that impugned order passed by learned Single
Judge was unsustainable in law. It was submitted that
observations made by learned Single Judge during course of
impugned order would affect rights of parties, who were
before Civil Court. It was submitted that respondent no.4
filed suit for declaration and injunction against petitioner in
O.S.No.79/2010 in respect of said property. After trial, suit
was dismissed holding that respondent no.4 was not owner
of property and was in possession. Against said judgment
and decree, respondent no.4 filed appeal in
R.A.No.49/2016, which was pending. Such being the case,
categorical observation by learned Single Judge that
petitioner was entitled for entry of his name in respect of 01
acre 27½ guntas only and respondent was entitled for 03
acres 14½ guntas would virtually foreclosed petitioner's
interest in appeal.
8. It was further submitted that after having been
appraised of pending civil litigation with regard to subject
property between parties, learned Single Judge instead of
passing an order that existing revenue entries would be
subject to result of civil litigation affirmed direction of
respondent no.1 for entering name of respondent no.4 with
regard to 03 acres 14½ guntas, however, which petitioner
was in possession even as per trial court decree.
9. Assailing order passed by respondent no.1 as per
annexure - E, learned counsel submitted that after coming
to a conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to decide disputes
of title and that parties were required to approach Civil
Court for resolution, could not have directed respondent
no.3 - Tahasildar to enter name of petitioner in respect of
01 acre 27½ guntas in Sy.No.291 and directed to enter
name of respondent no.4 with regard to 03 acres 14½
guntas. Despite said material error being brought to notice
of learned Single Judge, refusal to exercise jurisdiction was
not justified and called for interference.
10. It was submitted that petitioner's father acquired
title and possession with regard to 01 acre 27½ guntas in
Sy.no.291 under registered sale deed dated 27.03.1967,
while he came in possession to an extent of 03 acres 14 ½
guntas in same land, under an agreement of sale dated
17.03.1967. In view of law laid down in Lakshmana
Gowda and Syed Bhasheer Ahmed (supra), alienation of
Inam land by Inamdar between 01.03.1963 and 07.08.1978
was saved. Admittedly, petitioner's father acquired
possession of lands in question under the above. Therefore,
rights of petitioner was protected in view of law declared.
However, observations of learned Single Judge and
directions issued would be contrary to above and thereby
calling for interference.
11. It was also contended that revenue entries were
standing in name of petitioner's father since 1967 right upto
1994. Therefore, respondent no.2 had rightly passed order
setting aside of same, when longstanding revenue entries
were ordered to be mutated by respondent no.3. Though
respondentno.1 refused interference in said order, however,
directed respondent no.3 to restrict entries in favour of
petitioner to an extent of 01 acre 27½ guntas only while
directing to enter name of respondent no.4 with regard to03
acres 14½ guntas. On the above grounds, learned counsel
sought for allowing appeal.
12. On the other hand, Sri. S. Srinivasa Murthy,
learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 sought to
support impugned order.
13. It was submitted that admittedly, there was
dispute regarding title over subject lands between petitioner
and respondent pending before Civil Court (at present in
R.A.No.49/2016). Under the circumstances, respondent
no.1 did not commit any error in observing that title dispute
has to be settled in said litigation. It was further submitted
that though petitioner claimed to be in possession over 05
acres 02 guntas of land, sale deed dated 27.03.1967 relied
by him was in respect of 1 acre 27 ½ guntas only. Insofar
as remaining extent of 03 acres 14½ guntas, petitioner
claimed to be in possession under an agreement of sale,
which does not confer title under provisions of Transfer of
Property Act. Therefore, respondent no.1 as well as learned
Single Judge were justified in holding that petitioner was
entitled for entry of his name in respect of 01 acre 27½
guntas only.
14. It was submitted that respondent no.4 was in
possession of 05 acres 02 guntas and 02 guntas of kharab
land i.e., total of 05 acres 04 guntas bearing sy.No.291 of
Bagepalli village, in which he had grown honge, Neem and
other trees. Said land was originally an Inam land of his
ancestors, who talawari nowkars. By an order bearing
no.HOA/R/talari No.15/1979-80 dated 17.06.1981,
Tahsildar, Bagepalli, regranted said land to father of
respondent no.4. Thereafter, said property was subject to
partition among family members, in which it fell to share of
respondent no.4. Father of respondent no.4 was in
possession and enjoyment of above property till his death
on 07.10.2002. In terms of the order of regrant, khata was
mutated in favour of respondent no.4 vide
RRT(D)No.17/2008-09.
15. It was further submitted that as petitioner not
purchased said property from the grantees, he did not
derive any title under the sale deed. It was further
submitted that during pendency of revenue proceedings,
before Assistant Commissioner, petitioner tried to
dispossess respondent no.4 by obstructing his agricultural
operations. Therefore, respondent no.4 filed O.S.
No.79/2010 before Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM,
Chikkaballapura, seeking for declaration of his title over said
lands and for an injunction restraining petitioner from
interfering with his possession. Though said suit was
dismissed on 08.01.2016, respondent no.4 had preferred
appeal in R.A.No.49/2016, which was pending before III
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura.
16. Learned counsel further submitted that as
petitioner has not purchased Inam lands from grantees,
decisions in Lakshman Gowda and Syed Basheer
(supra), would not be of any avail to petitioner nor could he
claim any title under sale deed. In view of the above,
learned counsel submitted that dismissal of writ petition by
learned Single Judge was justified and no interference was
called for.
17. From above submissions, it appears that there is
dispute about nature of right claimed over subject land and
regarding possession. While petitioner is claiming to be in
possession having acquired title under registered sale deed
in respect of one portion of land and under an agreement of
sale (with possession) in respect of other portion,
respondent no.4 is claiming title in pursuance of an order of
regrant of Inam land in favour of his father and allocation of
said land towards his share in family partition. It is also not
in dispute that respondent no.4 had filed a suit for
declaration of title over subject against petitioner, which
though dismissed, is pending in appeal.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sawarni (Smt) Vs. Inder Kaur (Smt) & Others reported
in 1996 (6) SCC 223, has held that mutation of a property
in revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has
it any presumptive value on title. It only enables person in
whose favour mutation is ordered to pay land revenue in
question. Same view was reiterated in Balwant Singh and
Another Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs. & Others
reported in 1997 (7) SCC 137. In Narasamma & Others
Vs. State of Karnataka & Others reported in 2009(5)
SCC 591, also, the Apex Court held that entries in revenue
record cannot create any title in respect of land in dispute,
but, it certainly reflects as to who was in possession of the
land in dispute on the date the name of that person had
been entered in revenue record.
19. In the instant case, petitioner is claiming to be in
possession of extent of 03 acres 14½ guntas in pursuance
of agreement of sale, which is not among the enumerated
acquisition of rights in Section 128 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, requiring mutation of revenue records under
Section 129. Therefore, mutation of petitioner's name in
revenue records in pursuance of agreement of sale would
not be justified. Therefore, respondent no.1 - Deputy
Commissioner, while relegating parties for adjudication of
their title dispute before Civil Court rightly directed to enter
name of petitioner insofar as 01 acre 27½ guntas of
Sy.no.291, while directing to enter name of respondent
no.4 in respect of 03 acres 14½ guntas subject to result of
adjudication before Civil Court. Claiming to be in possession
under agreement of sale, petitioner may at best, have a
right to enforce agreement against his vendor and cannot
claim title under the same.
20. Learned Single Judge after taking note of above
position has refused to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.
We find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order
of the leaned Single Judge. However, we clarify that
revenue entries mutated and effected in the name of
respondent no.4 by Deputy Commissioner as respondent
no.1 to an extent of -03 acres 14½ guntas of Sy.No.291 of
Bagepalli village, shall be subject to the result of pending
proceedings in R.A.No.49/2016. In the result, we pass
following:
ORDER
Writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bkp/psg*
