Karnataka High Court
Mariyappa vs The Secretary on 7 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45207
WP NO.11518 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.11518 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
MARIYAPPA
DIED, BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1. SHRI. NARSIMHAMURTHY
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2. SHRI. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
3. SHRI. HARTIMARAIAH
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
GUDEMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
Digitally signed by RAMANAGARA DISTGRICT - 562 159.
ARUN KUMAR M S
Location: High
Court of Karnataka ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HALESHA R.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45207
WP NO.11518 OF 2023
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
4. THE TAHASILDHAR,
MAGADI TALUK,
MAGADI - 562 120.
5. SMT. SHIVAMMA,
W/O NAGARAJU
R/O GUDEMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTGRICT - 562 159.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28TH MARCH, 2023 PASSED IN
REVISION PETITION NO.73/2021-22 BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA VIDE ANNEXURE-N; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing order dated
28th March, 2023 (Annexure-N) passed in Revision Petition
No.73/2021-22 by the respondent No.2, wherein, the revision
petition filed by the respondent No.5 herein came to be
allowed.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition
are that the petitioners have stated that the father of the
NC: 2023:KHC:45207
WP NO.11518 OF 2023
petitioners had challenged MR.No.5/1984-85 made in favour of
Hanumakka (mother of the respondent No.5) before the
respondent No.3 in Case No.R.A.(L.K.P.)130/1992-93 on the
ground that the property in question is the joint family property
and the said Hanumakka had got her name in the mutation
register through the respondent No.4 without the knowledge of
the father of the petitioners. The respondent No.3, by order
dated 03rd June, 1996 (Annexure-A1) had set-aside the order in
MR No.5/1984-85 and remanded the matter to the respondent
No.4 for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the respondent No.4,
after considering the material on record in R.R.T.(D)/92/2020-
21, by order dated 26th April, 2021 (Annexure-J), directed the
parties to establish their right over the property in the Civil
Court as the respondent No.5 herein has stated that she got
property through Will as well as based on the Adoption Deed
dated 16th January, 2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the
respondent No.5 filed an appeal in R.A./106/2021-22 before
the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3, by order dated
20th December, 2021 (Annexure-L), directed the parties to
establish their right over the property in question. Pursuant to
the same, the respondent No.5 has filed Revision Petition
NC: 2023:KHC:45207
WP NO.11518 OF 2023
No.73/2021-22 before the respondent No.2 and the respondent
No.2, by the impugned order dated 28th March, 2023
(Annexure-N), allowed the Revision Petition preferred by the
respondent No.5 and as such, restored the mutation made in
favour of the mother of the respondent No.5 as per
M.R.No.5/1984-85. Being aggrieved by the same, the present
writ petition is filed by the petitioners.
3. Heard Sri. Halesha R.G., learned counsel appearing for
petitioners; Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri. P.M. Gopi,
learned counsel on behalf of Sri. P.M. Sidamallappa, appearing
for the respondent No.5.
4. Sri. Halesha R.G., learned counsel appearing for
petitioners submit that the respondent No.2, without
considering the material on record has restored the
M.R.No.5/1984-85, despite the fact that the respondent No.5
has to establish right over the property through the execution
of Will thereunder. He further contended that the respondent
No.3, after considering the material on record has arrived at a
conclusion that the respondent No.5 has to establish her right
NC: 2023:KHC:45207
WP NO.11518 OF 2023
over the property in question. Accordingly sought for
interference.
5. Per contra, Sri. P.M. Gopi, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.5 argued that the respondent No.5 got
property through the Will as well as the registered Adoption
Deed and therefore, the petitioners have to establish their right
over the property in question and not the respondent No.5.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. In this
regard, he referred to the judgment of this court in the case of
R.A. PRADEEP vs. N. MURARI AND OTHERS reported in ILR
2021 KAR 1 and argued that the petitioners have to establish
their right in respect of the land in question and accordingly,
sought for confirming of the order passed by the respondent
No.2.
6. Sri. Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 sought to justify the
impugned order passed by the respondent No.2.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perusal of writ petition would indicate that the
respondent No.4 herein has passed order in MR.No.5/1984-85
NC: 2023:KHC:45207
WP NO.11518 OF 2023
and same was challenged by the father of the petitioners in
R.A.(L.K.P)130/1992-93. The respondent No.3, by order dated
03rd June, 1996 (Annexure-A1), remanded the matter to the
respondent No.4 for fresh consideration. In the meanwhile, the
respondent No.5 has filed representation to the respondent
No.4 that the land bearing Survey No.100/2 measuring 12
guntas and Survey No.102/2B measuring 2 acre 24 guntas is
the ancestral property of the respondent No.5 and her mother
Hanummakka had executed the Will in respect of the subject
land and accordingly, sought for confirmation of the Mutation
made in the favour of her mother Hanumakka. The respondent
No.4, after considering the material on record, by order dated
26th April, 2021 (Annexure-J), changed the Mutation in favour
of the father of the petitioners. Consequently, order passed by
the respondent No.4 at Annexure-J was questioned by the
respondent No.5 before the respondent No.3 in RA.106/2021-
22. The respondent No.3, by order 20th December, 2021
(Annexure-L) confirmed the order passed by the respondent
No.4, entering the name of the father of the petitioners. Being
aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.5 has filed Revision
Petition No.73/2021-22 before the respondent No.2 and the
NC: 2023:KHC:45207
WP NO.11518 OF 2023
respondent No.2, by impugned order dated 28th March, 2023,
set-aside the order passed by respondents 3 and 4 and as
such, directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to
establish their right and consequently, restored the M.R.
No.5/1984-85. It is to be noted here that the respondent No.5
is claiming right over the property through a Will executed by
Hanumakka and same is to be proved in a manner known to
law to crystalise the rights of the parties.
8. Perusal of the writ papers would also include that the
father of the petitioners filed Original Suit No.86 of 1995
against the said Hanumakka, seeking relief of permanent
injunction and consequential relief. Perusal of the judgment
and decree passed in the aforesaid suit would indicate that
nothing is stated about the execution of Will. In that view of
the matter, the respondent No.5 to be a legatee under the Will
in question, the respondent No.5 ought to have proved the
execution of Will made by Hanumakka in favour of the
respondent No.5 as the same is disputed by the father of the
petitioners. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that
the respondents 3 and 4 have rightly passed order with regard
to incorporating the name of the father of the petitioners in
NC: 2023:KHC:45207
WP NO.11518 OF 2023
Mutation Register and same has been erroneously interfered
with by the respondent No.2. It is to be noted that the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of R.A. PRADEEP (supra) at
paragraph 13 and 14 reads as under:
"13. Thus, the law is very consistent. Even if by
virtue of a mutation entry, the name of a person is
entered in revenue records in respect of an immovable
property, it does not confer any right, title and interest on
the said person. Even if the name of a person appearing
in the revenue record is removed, it does not extinguish
the right, title and interest, if any, vesting in him in
respect of the property. The mutation or revenue entries
are made only for fiscal purposes for deciding the liability
to pay land tax or land revenue. Consequently, the orders
passed under the said Act of 1964 concerning the
mutation entries and the revenue entries do not decide
the issue of title in respect of the properties affected by
the entries. Notwithstanding the orders of the authorities
under the said Act of 1964 concerning mutation entries
and the revenue entries, the aggrieved party can always
establish his title by approaching the Civil Court. At the
highest, an entry in revenue record, may in a given case,
constitute prima facie - 11 - evidence of possession. But
the said entries being made only for fiscal purposes have
nothing to do with the title in respect of the immovable
property. Therefore, while dealing with the writ petitions
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
arising out of the proceedings concerning mutation/
NC: 2023:KHC:45207
WP NO.11518 OF 2023
revenue entries, normally a Writ Court should be very
slow in interfering with the orders inasmuch as the orders
do not affect the right, title and interest of the parties and
do not take away the remedy of the parities to approach
the Civil Court. In fact, the orders passed by the revenue
authorities concerning mutation entries and revenue
entries are always subject to the adjudication by the
competent Civil Court.
14. All that the Revisional Authority has done is
that after noticing the pendency of the suit for partition
filed by the first respondent against the vendor of the
appellant which was pending on the date of execution of
the Sale Deed, he directed that the mutation entry earlier
existed should be restored which will be subject to the
decision in the civil suit and further directed that after the
final decision in the civil suit, the parties can again
approach the revenue authorities."
9. Applying the aforementioned principle to the case on
hand, the respondent No.2 herein ought to have relegated the
parties to establish their right over the property in question,
since the respondent No.5 is claiming right over the property
through the Will. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ petition allowed;
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45207
WP NO.11518 OF 2023
2) Order dated 28th March, 2023 (Annexure-N)
passed by the respondent No.2 in the Revision
Petition No.73/2021-22 is set-aside and order
dated 20th December, 2021 (Annexure-L)
passed by the respondent No.3 in
R.A./106/2021-22 is confirmed;
3) It is open for the respondent No.5 to establish
her right over the property in question in a
manner known to law;
4) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
SD/-
JUDGE
ARK
