Karnataka High Court
Sri M R Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.1084/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M. R. KUMAR
S/O RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGED 43 YEARS,
2. SRI R. MANJUNATH
S/O RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGED 40 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
MARALURU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TQ. AND DIST.-572101 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE THASILDAR
TUMAKURU,
TUMAKURU TALUK
AND DIST.-572101
2
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION,
TUMAKURU,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU-572101.
5. SRI RANGASWAMAIAH
S/O LATE KADIMAIAH,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/O MARALURU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TQ.
AND DIST.-572101.
6. SRI MOHAMED INAYATH ULLA
S/O LATE T. M. MAHABOOB ULLA,
AGED 54 YEARS,
R/O 7TH CROSS,
VINOBHANAGARA EXTENSION,
TUMAKURU TOWN-572101.
7. SMT. K. FAZILA BANU
W/O T. MOHAMED INAYATH ULLA,
AGED 49 YEARS,
R/O 2ND CROSS, VINOBHANAGARA,
TUMAKURU,
NOW RESIDING AT
8TH CROSS,
SADASHIVNAGAR,
TUMAKURU-572101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VANI.H., AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 21.04.2021 PASSED IN W.P. NO.8116/2021(KLR-RES).
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the
order dated 21st April 2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.8116/2021 (KLR-RES).
2. The parties are referred to by their rankings assigned
to them in the writ petition.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal are:
The land bearing Sy.No.82/1A1 measuring 0.21.07.74
guntas situated at Maraluru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru
Taluk and District (for short "the land in question") was sold
vide sale deed dated 22.05.2012 by the sixth respondent in
favour of the seventh respondent on the strength of the
General Power of Attorney executed by the father of the
petitioners, who was the joint owner of the said land in
question. It is the case of the petitioners that their father did
not have an exclusive right and title to alienate the said
property and they also disputed the genuineness of the
General Power of Attorney. It is under these circumstances,
the petitioners have preferred O.S.No.342/2013 before the
court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Tumakuru, which is pending
consideration. On the strength of the registered sale deed,
the third respondent had passed an order on 03.09.2019
directing the jurisdictional Tahsildar to transfer the khatha
and revenue entries of the land in question in the name of 7th
respondent. The revision petition filed by the petitioners as
against the said order was dismissed by the Deputy
Commissioner vide his order dated 05.04.2021 and therefore,
they had approached this court in Writ Petition
No.8116/2021. The said writ petition has been disposed off
by the learned Single Judge of this court vide the order
impugned and it is under these circumstances, the petitioners
are before this court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
land in question is a joint family property and therefore, their
father had no absolute right to alienate the same. He has
relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of
Basagouda -vs- The Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi
and Others reported in ILR 1999 KAR 1484 in support of
his above contention.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate
has argued in support of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge of this court.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the
material available on record.
7. The competent authority under the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act has directed to enter the name of the 7th
respondent in the revenue records of the land in question,
who has purchased the land in question from the father of the
petitioners under a registered sale deed. The said order
cannot be found fault with. The challenge to the sale made in
favour of the 7th respondent is pending adjudication in
O.S.No.342/2013 filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the
entry made in favour of the 7th respondent will be subject to
the outcome of the suit. The judgment in the case of
Basagouda (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of the
present case. Therefore, we find no infirmity or illegality in
the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court.
Accordingly, we decline to entertain this appeal. Therefore,
the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
