Karnataka High Court
Smt. Muthyalamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.16286 OF 2015 (GM-PP)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MUTHYALAMMA,
W/O.P.VENNKATARAMANAPPA
AGE:MAJOR,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/AT.VINOBHANAGAR MUNICIPAL,
1ST DIVISION, CHINTAMANI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-1
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPUR.
3 . ANKANNA,
S/O.RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O.SUBASH ROAD,
CHINTAMANI TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
4 . CIRCLE INSPECTOR
CHINTAMANI TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.M.RAJANNA SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1, R2 & R4)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DT.19.1.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2
VIDE ANNX-A; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of writ court for
assailing the order issued by the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner on 19.01.2015 addressing the jurisdictional
Police Inspector at Annexure-A. The operative portion of
this order reads as under:
"MmÁÖgÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
DzÉñÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀAvÉ ²æà ºÉZï.J¸ï.
²æäªÁ¸ÀAiÀÄå (¥ÀæwªÁ¢) gÀªÀgÀÄ. ²æà CAPÀtÚ ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï gÀAUÀ¥Àà
(ªÁ¢) gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è (µÀqÀÆå¯ïóó ¸ÀéwÛ£À SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå 1851/1704 C¼ÀvÉ
28 X 30gÀ gÀ CrUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ 10 X 15 CrUÀ¼À°è) CPÀæªÀÄ/PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
¨Á»gÀªÁV ºÁQgÀĪÀ ZÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ
vÉgÀªÀÅUÀƽ¸À®Ä CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ PÉÊUÀÆAqÀ PÀæªÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ F
PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ."
2. After service of notice, the State and its officials
are represented by the learned HCGP and Respondent No.3
a private party is represented by his private counsel. The
private counsel appearing and the learned HCGP resist the
writ petition making submission in justification of what is
impugned, specifically pointing out that petitioner is only a
transferee of H.S.Srinivsaiah who has suffered a decree in
O.S.No.84/2004 and that the impugned order accords with
the judgment & decree. Constitutional Courts should not
come to the rescue of violators of verdicts of the civil
Courts. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ
petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines
to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, petitioner
happens to be the transferee of the defendant in the
subject suit and therefore, he suffers doctrine of lis pendens
as enacted in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. Thus, he is bound by the decree. This apart, the
Deputy Commissioner's order accords with the judgment &
decree in question. Therefore, it cannot be part heard.
4. The vehement submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner that the said decree was put in appeal in RA
No.21/2012 and the said Regular Appeal having been
negatived, now a second appeal is pending in RSA
No.1293/2015 does not come to his aid in the absence of
any interim order of the RSA Court interdicting the
enforcement of the decree in question as rightly contended
by learned private counsel appearing for the private
respondent. It also makes sense that Deputy
Commissioner's order being in accord with the verdict of
civil Court, a transferee of judgment-debtor cannot be
permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of a constitutional
Court. Instead, he should obey the decree subject outcome
of RSA.
In the above circumstances, writ petition being devoid
of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is,
costs having been made easy. However, if there is any
interim order that may be obtained at the hands of the RSA
Court, this judgment shall not take effect.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS
