Karnataka High Court
Sri Karigiriyappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 March, 2022
Bench: M.I.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6411 OF 2017 (KLR-RR-SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KARIGIRIYAPPA
S/O PEDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT 4TH MAIN ROAD
6TH CROSS, SADASHIVA NAGAR
TUMKUR - 571 112
2. SMT NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE PEDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT BHOVIPALYA, OORUKERE
TUMKUR TALUK - 571 112
3. SRI GIRIYAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT OPPOSITE TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND BEHIND B.ED.
COLLEGE SHIRA GATE, TUMKUR - 571 112
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SHANMUKHAPPA, ADV.)
2
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
4. SMT P RAJAMMA
D/O LATE CONTRACTOR PEDDAIAH
S/O CONTRACTOR PEDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT 2ND MAIN, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION
TUMKUR - 571 112
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K. V. NARASIMHAN, ADV. FOR R-4 [NOC];
SRI. A. R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER IN R.P.NO.104/2010-11
DTD.6.1.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The case of the petitioners is that their forefather
was owner of 3 acres 3 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.87/2A and
87/2B of Oorukere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk
and that he sold 1 acre 1 gunta of land in favour of the
father of respondent No.4 on 07.08.1937 but the
remaining 2 acres 2 guntas of land always remained with
the forefather of the petitioner and after his demise,
presently the petitioners have inherited the said 2 acres 2
guntas of land. However, respondent No.4 got her name
mutated in respect of entire 3 acres 3 guntas of land.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached
respondent No.2 by way of Appeal No. RRT (A) (TU)
No.163/2007-08 vide Annexure - B and respondent No.2
was pleased to pass an order in favour of the petitioners
herein by remanding the matter to Tahsildar and ordering
him to re-examine the case. Aggrieved by the same, the
respondent No.4 filed a revision before the respondent
No.1 by way of R.P.No.104/2010-2011 and that
respondent No.1 has erroneously allowed the said revision
petition and has set aside the order passed by respondent
No.2 - Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same,
the instant writ petition is filed.
2. It is contended by the petitioners that only 1 acre
1 gunta of land has been sold in favour of the father of
Respondent No.4 by their forefather and respondent No.1
has erroneously passed an order setting aside the order of
the respondent No.2 thereby permitting the revenue
entries to continue in the name of the respondent No.4 in
respect of entire 3 acres 3 guntas of land and the same
requires to be set aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3 submits that respondent No.4 indeed is owner of
entire 3 acres 3 guntas of land and in this regard there is a
civil dispute between the parties and has produced a copy
of the judgment in O.S.No.38/2011 dated 22.09.2018
passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Tumkur, wherein, the respondent No.4 has been declared
to be the absolute owner of the entire 3 acres 3 guntas of
land and petitioners herein have been restrained by way of
permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment by respondent No.4 herein on
the said property. It is further submitted that in this
regard, the petitioners have preferred regular appeal which
is pending.
4. The fact of the decision in O.S.No.38/2011 and
the pending of the regular appeal on the said judgment
and decree is not disputed by the petitioners herein.
5. As per the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.38/2011, respondent No.4 is the absolute owner of
the properties in question. The respondent Nos.1 and 2,
who are the revenue authorities in this case have no
authority to decide the ownership of the persons over the
properties. Based on the documents made available they
have mutated the name of the persons in revenue entries.
In this case, admittedly by judgment and decree in
O.S.No.38/2011, respondent No.4 has been declared as
owner of the properties in question and for that reason,
the action of respondent No.1 in passing the impugned
order in R.P.No.104/2010-11 vide Annexure - A to the writ
petition cannot be found fault with. If the petitioners were
to succeed in the regular appeal, they are always at liberty
to move the revenue authorities to redress their
grievances.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition
being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Hence,
the following:-
ORDER
The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MH/-
