Sri Karigiriyappa vs The Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 11096 Kant

                             1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                          PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

      WRIT APPEAL No.466/2022 (KLR/RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI KARIGIRIYAPPA
       S/O PEDDAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
       /AT 4TH MAIN ROAD
       TH CROSS, SADASHIVA NAGAR
       UMKUR - 571 112.

2.     SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
       W/O LATE PEDDAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
       R/AT BHOVIPALYA OORUKERE
       TUMKUR TALUK - 571 112.          ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI SHANMUKHAPPA, ADV)

AND:

1.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       TUMKUR DISTRICT
       TUMKUR - 571 112

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       TUMKUR SUB DIVISION
       TUMKUR - 571 112

3.     THE TAHASILDAR
       TUMKUR TALUK
       TUMKUR - 571 112
                           2


4.   SMT. P RAJAMMA
     D/O LAT CONTRACTOR PEDDAIAH
     S/O CONTRACTOR PEDDAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
     R/AT 2ND MAIN
     SIDDAGANGA XTENSION
     TUMKUR - 571 112.

5.   SRI GIRIYAPPA
     S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
     R/AT OPPOSITE TO DPUTY COMMISSIONERS
     RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND
     BEHIND B.ED.COLLGE, SHIRA GATE
     TUMKUR - 571 112.               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.N.NITISH, ADV. FOR
 SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADV. FOR R-4;
 SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA
 FOR R-1, 2 & 3;
 R-5 SERVED)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 16.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN W.P.NO. 6411/2017 BY ALLOWING
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR
RELIEFS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

                  JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for parties.

2. This intra-court appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful petitioners challenging the order dated

16.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in Writ Petition No.6411/2017 (KLR-RR-

SUR).

3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant

for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:

The land bearing Sy.No.87/2A and 87/2B of

Oorukere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk

measuring 3 acres 3 guntas is the ancestral property

of the appellants and out of the same, they had sold

1 acre 1 gunta in favour of the father of the

respondent No.4 on 07.08.1937. However,

respondent No.4 got her name mutated in respect of

the entire extent of land measuring 3 acres 3 guntas

in the aforesaid survey numbers. Being aggrieved

by the same, the appellants filed an appeal under

Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

1964 ('the Act' for short) before the Assistant

Commissioner, who had remanded the matter to the

Tahsildar and being aggrieved by the same,

respondent No.4 had filed a revision under Section

136(3) of the Act before the first respondent-Deputy

Commissioner, who had allowed the revision and set

aside the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the said order

passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the appellants

had preferred the writ petition, which has been

dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the order

impugned.

4. Undisputedly, respondent No.4 has filed

O.S.No.38/2011 before the court of II Addl.Senior

Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Tumkur and the said suit

was decreed on 22.09.2018 declaring that

respondent No.4 is the absolute owner of the entire

extent of land measuring 3 acres 3 guntas in the

aforesaid survey numbers and the order of

permanent injunction was also granted in her favour

and against the appellants herein. Being aggrieved

by the said judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.38/2011, the appellants have preferred a

regular appeal before the first appellate court, which

is pending consideration. Taking this aspect of the

matter into consideration, the learned Single Judge

has dismissed the writ petition.

5. We find no illegality or irregularity in the said

order and therefore, this writ appeal does not merit

consideration. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

We make it clear that the revenue entries in respect

of the land in question would be, however, subject to

the outcome of the regular appeal, which has been

filed by the appellants herein, challenging the

judgment and decree dated 22.09.2018 passed by

the court of II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,

Tumkur, in O.S.No.38/2011.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-