Karnataka High Court
Bharatesh S/O Srikant Algur vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 January, 2022
Bench: R Natarajpresided Byrnj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.65905/2011 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN
1. BHARATESH S/O SRIKANT ALGUR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O TAKKALAKI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. BAHUBALI S/O SRIKANT ALGUR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULUTRE,
R/O TAKKALAKI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.MAHANTESH R PATIL, ADV.)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
3. BHUJABALI S/O SRIKANT ALGUR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREPADASALAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
4. TAYAVVA W/O SRIKANT ALGUR,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
:2:
R/O HIREPADASALAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
5. RAJAVVA W/O BHIMA DEYAGOND,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREPADASALAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
6. VILASAVVA W/O JINNAPPA DEYEGONDA,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREPADASALAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
7. SHANTAPPA S/O PARISH ALGUR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O TAKKALAKI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
8. JINNAPPA S/O PARISH ALGUR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O TAKKALAKI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
9. MUTTAVVA W/O MAHAVEER MUTTUR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O TAKKALAKI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.M C HUKKERI, ADV. FOR R3-R6;
R7, R8, & R9 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR AN OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED:11/08/2011 IN No.RTS/REV-11/2009-10 PASSED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-
E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
ORDER
1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated
11.08.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 in No.RTS/REV-
11/2009-10 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the 1964 Act'), by which he
reversed the order passed by the respondent No.2 in RTSAP
No.64/2006-07 in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.128/1,
110/10, 132/2 of Takkalaki village, Jamkhandi taluk.
2. The petitioners claim that the revenue records of the
property bearing Sy.Nos.128/1, 123/2 of Takkalaki village,
Jamkhandi taluk stood in the name of the respondents 7, 8 and
Srikant, who is the father of the petitioners herein. It is claimed
that R.S.No.110/10 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas and R.S.No.71/1
measuring 6 acres 5 guntas of Takkalaki village stood in the
name of the deceased-Srikant, the father of the petitioners, who
died on 17.05.2003. He was survived by his wife, petitioners and
daughters named Sulochana, Muttavva, Sujatha and Deepa. The
petitioners herein submitted an application before the Tahasildar,
Jamakhandi for a certificate evidencing the survivors of deceased
Srikant. They claimed that at a family arrangement, the
daughters of deceased-Srikant, gave their consent to enter the
name of the petitioners as well as their names in the record of
rights of Sy.Nos.128/1, 123/2, 110/10 and 71/1. Accordingly
M.E.No.36/2004-2005 was certified on 17.11.2004. The
petitioners claim that they were in possession of the aforesaid
land and that they had raised sugarcane crops in the land which
was sold to Jamakhandi Sugars Ltd., They also availed loan for
the development of agriculture on the property bearing
R.S.Nos.71/1, 110/10 and 123/2.
3. Being aggrieved by the mutation entries in
M.E.No.36/2004-2005, the respondents 3 to 6 filed an appeal
before the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi in RTSAP
No.64/2006-07. They claimed that the petitioners herein and
their sisters had filed O.S.No.198/2007 for partition. They
claimed that they too had succeeded to an undivided share in the
properties in question but the petitioners without disclosing the
pendency of O.S.No.198/2001 had fraudulently obtained a
mutation of their names in the revenue records. The Assistant
Commissioner found that the deceased Srikant had two wives
and the petitioners were the children of Srikant from
Smt.Prabhavati while the respondents 3 to 6 were the children
from Smt.Thayawwa. He noticed the pendecny of the civil suit in
O.S.No.198/2001 for partition and hence dismissed the appeal
by order dated 26.03.2009 and directed the parties to approach
the Civil Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondents 3
to 6 filed revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner,
Bagalkote. The Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkote even though
noticed the pendency of civil suits, allowed the revision petition
and set aside the mutation entries in M.E.No.36/2004-2005.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present
writ petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in
respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.71/1, 110/10, a suit in
O.S.No.92/2010 was filed against the respondents 3 to 6 and 9
herein for partition and separate possession and that the said
suit was decreed in part vide judgment and decree dated
04.10.2021 in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.71/1, 110/10
and 19/1+2A and it was declared that the petitioners were
entitled to 1/50th share. Learned counsel for the petitioners
therefore submitted that even as per the order of respondent
No.1, the names of the petitioners are to be entered in the
revenue records in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.71/1,
110/10 of Takkalaki village, Jamakhandi taluk.
7. The counsel for respondents 3 to 6 is not present and
therefore this Court did not have the benefit of the arguments of
the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. It is seen from the order of the respondent Nos.1 and
2 that the lands in question stood in the name of Srikant, who
died on 17.05.2003. During his lifetime, the respondent No.3
filed a suit in O.S.No.63/1983 against Srikant and his wife
Smt.Thayawwa and that the said suit was compromised, though
allegedly by fraudulent means. Later the name of the respondent
No.3 was entered in the revenue records which was challenged
by Srikant before the Assistant Commissioner, who set aside the
revenue entries in the name of respondent No.3. In the
meantime, after the death of Srikant, the petitioners herein and
their sisters entered into a family settlement, in terms of which
they consented to enter their names in the revenue records. In
the meantime, the petitioners had filed O.S.No.198/2001 for
partition which they withdrew on 27.03.2010 with a liberty to file
a fresh suit. Thereafter, respondent Nos.3 to 6 filed
O.S.No.17/2007 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction
in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.19/1+2A, 101/1 and
21/2A. The petitioners then filed O.S.No.92/2010 for partition of
their share in the land bearing Sy.Nos.71/1, 110/10, 19/1+2A,
101/1 and 21/2A. The cousins of Srikant had also filed
O.S.No.42/2009 in respect of Sy.Nos.21/A, 101/1 claiming title
and for perpetual injunction. The Trial Court clubbed
O.S.No.92/2010 with O.S.No.42/2009 and in terms of the
Judgment and Decree dated 04.10.2021 decreed the suit in
O.S.No.92/2010 and declared that the petitioners are entitled to
1/50th share in the suit properties. Therefore, as the matter now
stands, the petitioners too have an undivided share in the
properties. The respondent No.1 after noticing the civil suits
between the parties must have directed the parties to await the
outcome of the civil suits and must not have disturbed the
revenue records.
9. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is
allowed in part. The impugned order dated 11.08.2011 passed
by respondent No.1 in RTS/REV-11/09-10 is set aside. The
respondent No.2 and the Tahasildar, Jamakhandi are directed to
enter the names of the petitioners along with respondents 3 to 6,
9 and the sisters of petitioners namely Sulochana, Muttavva,
Sujatha and Deepa in the revenue records relating to the land
bearing Sy.Nos.71/1, 110/10 of Takkalaki village, Jamakhandi
taluk and the same shall be complied within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. This shall however be subject to the outcome of any
appeal that may be filed against the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.92/2010. Any observations contained herein as well as in
the order of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall all be subject to
the final outcome of the appeal, if filed by any of the parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM/KGK
