Sri E V Sriramulu @ Sriramappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1317 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

              W.A.No.1234/2021 (KLR - RES)


BETWEEN :

SRI E.V.SRIRAMULU @ SRIRAMAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT SUGGONDAHALLI VILLAGE
MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.                                  ...APPELLANT

              (BY SRI ARAVIND M. NEGLUR, ADV.)


AND :

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
        VIDHANA SOUDHA
        BENGALURU-560001

2.      THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
        KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101

3.      THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
        KOLAR NORTH SUB DIVSION
        KOLAR-563101

4.      THE TAHASILDAR
        MALUR TALUK, MALUR-563103
                             -2-




5.    THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR
      NADA KACHERI, MASTHI HOBLI
      MALUR TALUK-563103

6.    THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
      MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK-563103

7.    SMT.NARAYANAMMA
      D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
      R/AT VARADENAHALLI VILLAGE
      TAMAKA POST, KASABA HOBLI
      KOLAR TALUK-563101                      ...RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1- TO R-6.)


     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN
W.P.NO.41700/2019 (KLR/RES) DATED 05.08.2021.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                       JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal is filed by the

appellant/respondent No.7 challenging the order dated

5.8.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.41700/2019, whereby the writ petition is

allowed quashing the order dated 15.7.2019 passed by

the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-F) restoring the

order of the Assistant Commissioner.

2. The respondent No.7 herein approached the

writ court challenging the order dated 15.7.2019

(Annexure-F) passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

wherein the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated

8.12.2015 made under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('Act' for short) has been

reversed, in exercising the revisional jurisdiction under

Section 136(3) of the Act.

3. On hearing both the sides, the learned

Single Judge, assigning the reasons in detail inasmuch

as entry of the name of the appellant herein in the

revenue registers concerning the subject land, has

quashed the impugned order as aforesaid. Hence, this

writ appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submitted that during the lifetime of the appellant's

mother/Venkatamma and her foster son/Byrappa, the

subject land bearing Sy.No.133 of Suggondanahalli

village, Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk, measuring to an

extent of 2 acres 20 guntas was purchased from one

Nanjappa s/o Munishamappa through a registered sale

deed dated 12.9.1986 for a valuable consideration. On

the basis of the registered sale deed, the katha has been

mutated in favour of the appellant's mother and his

brother through MR No.11/1986-87. Since then they

were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said

property. The subject land renumbered as new

Sy.No.133, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, has fallen to

the share of the appellant and the same has been

mutated in his name after the death of his

brother, who was a bachelor. The appellant has

developed the subject land.

5. It was submitted that the respondent No.7

herein falsely claiming to be the owner of the subject

property has filed the suit in OS.No.89/2014 before the

Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, against the appellant

herein for the relief of declaration of title and permanent

injunction and the same is pending consideration.

OS.No.589/2011 filed by the appellant before the Civil

Judge and JMFC at Malur against Nanjappa for the

relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect

of the subject land having been dismissed, RA has been

filed before the District Court, Kolar, and the same is

pending consideration. That being the fact situation,

the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered

with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, wherein the

revenue entries were directed to be effected in the name

of the appellant herein. Placing reliance on the Co-

ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of

Sri R.A.Prdeep v. Sri N.Murali & Ors., reported in ILR

2021 KAR 1, the learned counsel submitted that the

revenue records in respect of an immovable property

does not confer any right, title and interest. The

revisional authority - Deputy Commissioner has

directed the mutation entry to be effected subject to the

decision of the Civil Suit. In such circumstances, no

interference was warranted by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have carefully considered the

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and perused the material on record.

7. There is no dispute on the legal proposition

that the mutation entry effected in the revenue records

in respect of an immovable property does not confer any

right, title and interest; the mutation or revenue entries

are made only for fiscal purposes for deciding the

liability to pay land tax or land revenue. The

undisputed facts would disclose that the suit in

OS.No.589/2011 filed by the appellant against one

Nanjappa - vendor for declaration of title and

consequential relief of injunction being dismissed by the

Senior Civil Judge at Malur, RA is said to have been

filed before the appropriate court. OS.No.89/2014 filed

by the respondent No.7 herein against the appellant

herein for the relief of declaration and permanent

injunction in respect of the property in question is

pending consideration.

8. The learned Single Judge having considered

the limited scope of Section 136(3) of the Act held that

no issue of succession could have been taken before the

revisional authority. Though the learned Single Judge

has allowed the writ petition, as a consequence thereof

directed the revenue authorities to make the entries in

the revenue records in the name of the respondent No.7

herein and the other LRs., of the deceased - Byrappa

making it clear that the same shall be subject to the

result of any appeal filed against the judgment and

decree which the appellant herein has suffered. The

argument of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant that the learned Single Judge ought not to

have interfered with the order of the Deputy

Commissioner cannot be countenanced for the cogent

reasons assigned in the order as discussed herein

above.

9. Given the circumstances, we find no

jurisdictional error in the order of the learned Single

Judge impugned herein. It is clarified that the entries

made in the revenue records pursuant to the directions

of the learned Single Judge shall not influence the Civil

Court in deciding the matter on merits.

In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

In view of the dismissal of the main matter, all

pending IAs are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

nd