T C Nagaraja vs The Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 12729 Kant

                            1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

   WRIT PETITION NO.51003 OF 2013 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

T.C.NAGARAJA.
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF MAADIKERE VILALGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PIN-563125,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.N.K.SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
PIN-562101.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
PIN-562101.

3. P ANJINAPPA.
S/O POTHULAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF MAADIKERE VILALGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PIN-563125.
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                                2

(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.VENUGOPAL G.M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.KALYAN R, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.9.4.2010 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE
NO.RA(SHI)/519/2006/07 VIDE ANNEX-L AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                              ORDER

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for

assailing the Assistant Commissioner's order dated

9.4.2010 (Annexure-L) and the Deputy Commissioner's

order dated 26.08.2013 (Annexure-P), which provide for

making entries in favour of private respondent No.3 and

adverse to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner vehemently argues that while O.S.No.95/2010 for

declaration & injunction filed by his client was very much

pending, the impugned orders could not have been made.

In support of his submission, he draws support from the

Proviso to Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

1964.

2. Learned AGA appearing for the official

respondents and learned private counsel appearing for the

3rd respondent vehemently oppose the petition contending

that the orders of the revenue authorities have nothing to

do with title to the land in question, even otherwise, the

subject suit of the petitioner having been negatived by a

judgment & decree dated 23.11.2021, the impugned orders

cannot be faltered, the pending appeal against the same in

R.A.No.6/2022 notwithstanding. 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

indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the

reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner which provides that

the entries now to be made in favour of 3rd respondent

herein shall be subject to the outcome of the suit &

therefore, the appeal as well which is nothing but

continuation of the suit proceeding. In other words, if the

petitioner succeeds in appeal, the entries in the revenue

records has to accord with the appellate decree.

With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed

off.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cbc