Hari, S/O.Ram Karjage vs Vivek Pandurang Patil
2023 Latest Caselaw 1155 Kant

                                                              -1-




                                                                      WP No. 63717 of 2009


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                      DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                                             BEFORE
                                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 63717 OF 2009 (KLR-RR/SUR)
                        BETWEEN:

                        1. Sri. Hari S/o Ram Karjage
                        Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
                        R/o: Malikwad, Tal: Chikodi,
                        Dist: Belagavi-591201.


                        Sri. Ganu S/o Balu Karjage
                        Since deceased by his L.R's


                        2A. Sri. Balu S/o Ganu Karjage,
                        Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,
                        R/o: Malikwad, Tal: Chikodi,
                        Dist: Belagavi-591201.


J                       2B. Smt. Rukmini W/o Mallu Karjage,
MAMATHA
                        Age: 61 years, Occ: Household work,
Digitally signed by J   R/o: Malikwad, Tal: Chikodi,
MAMATHA
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA            Dist: Belagavi-591201.
DHARWAD
Date: 2023.02.04
11:42:24 +0530


                        2C. Sri. Sanjay S/o Mallu Karjage,
                        Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,
                        R/o: Malikwad, Tal: Chikodi,
                        Dist: Belagavi-591201.


                        2D. Smt. Savita W/o Basappa Naik
                        D/o Ganu Karjage,
                                       -2-




                                                 WP No. 63717 of 2009


Age: 35 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o: Malikwad, Tal: Chikodi,
Dist: Belagavi-591201.
                                                             ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. Vivek Pandurang Patil
Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Malikwad, Tal: Chikodi,
Dist: Belagavi-591201.


2. The Revenue Inspector,
Sadalaga, Tal: Chikodi,
Dist: Belagavi-591201.


3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Chikodi, Tal: Chikodi,
Dist: Belagavi-591201.


4. The Deputy Commissioner,
Belagavi-590001.
                                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHARAD V MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

       SRI. VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

       THIS WP IS FILED UNDER               ARTICLES   226   AND   227   OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DTD.27/1/2009 BEARING NO.RB.RTA.132/2007-08 PASSED BY THE DY.
COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM AT ANNEXURE-D.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                        -3-




                                                 WP No. 63717 of 2009


                                      ORDER

1. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 27/1/2009,

passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi (Annexure-D) as

the petitioners have purchased the land in question from the father

of the respondent No.1 by paying valuable consideration and it is

contended that, further the Deputy Commissioner ought have

mutated the name of the petitioners in terms of Section 128 of

Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short the "Act") and being

aggrieved by the order passed by the 4th respondent herein, the

present writ petition is filed.

2. Sri.Srianand A Pachhapure, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners contended that in terms of Section 128

of the Act, the mutation entry has to be made pursuant to the

execution of sale deed by the father of the respondent No.1 in

favour of the petitioners. He further contended that

R.A.No.119/2020 is pending consideration before the 7th Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Chikkodi in respect of the said land in

question and therefore, he argued that the impugned order passed

by the 4th respondent requires to be interfered with.

WP No. 63717 of 2009

3. Per contra, Sri.Sharad V Magadum, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.1 has placed on record the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6/2008 on the file of the

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkodi, whereby suit has been filed by

the petitioners herein, seeking declaration of ownership and

consequential relief of permanent injunction, which came to

dismissed by judgment and decree dated 29/2/2020. In that view of

the matter, as the competent Civil Court has declared that the

petitioners herein are not the owners of the land in question and

accordingly, he sought to justify the impugned order passed by the

4th respondent.

4. Sri.Vinayak S Kulkarni, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 sought to sustain

the impugned order passed by the revenue authorities.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, though, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that it is the duty of the revenue authorities to make entries pursuant to the registered sale deed executed by the father of the respondent No.1 herein in favour of the petitioners, however, the said argument cannot be

WP No. 63717 of 2009

considered as the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.6/2008, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29/2/2020. In that view of the matter, as it is submitted at the Bar that, petitioners herein have filed R.A.No.119/2020 before the First Appellate Court, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition.

However, it is made clear that, any interference that may be made by the revenue authorities will be subject to the result of R.A.No.119/2020.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VB