Karnataka High Court
Yamanoorappa S/O Nagappa Koujagi ... vs The Deputy Commissioner And Other on 9 February, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
WP No. 103562 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 103562 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1 YAMANOORAPPA
S/O. NAGAPPA KOUJAGI
AGE:33 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANNAL, TQ. KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583277
2 MUDAKAPPA
S/O. NAGAPPA KOUJAGI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANNAL, TQ. KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583277
3 YANKAPPA
S/O. DURGAPPA KOUJAGI
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
CHANDRASHEKAR R/O. KANNAL, TQ. KUSHTAGI,DIST: KOPPAL
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI NOW RESIDING AT TURVIHAL,
Digitally signed by
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
Date: 2023.02.10 11:42:56
+0530 4 HANUMAMMA
W/O. DURGAPPA KOUJAGI
AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANNAL, TQ. KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL NOW RESIDING AT TURVIHAL,
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR
PIN-
NAGAPPA S/O. YANKAPPA KOUJAGI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.'S
REP. BY PETITIONER 5 TO 8
-2-
WP No. 103562 of 2022
5 TIMANNA S/O. NAGAPPA KOUJAGI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANNAL, TQ. KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583277
6 GANGAMMA W/O. SHIVARAJ
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. YATLADODDI, TQ. SINDHANUR,
DIST: RAICHUR
7 DURGAMMA
W/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. VIRAPUR, TQ. SINDHANUR,
DIST: RAICHUR
8 LACHAMAMMA W/O. MALLAPPA
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. TAGGALDONI, TQ. KUSHTAGI,
DIST: RAICHUR
9 YAMANAMMA W/O. MUDAKAPPA @
MALADAKAPPA TALAWAR
AGE 64 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANNAL TQ: KUSHTAGI
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583277
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-582114
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-582114
3 THE TAHSILDAR
TQ: KUSHTAGI KUSHTAGI
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583277
-3-
WP No. 103562 of 2022
4 THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
TAVARAGERA, DIST: KOPPAL
5 THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
MENADAL, DIST: KOPPAL
6 SRI. THIMAPPA S/O. SANNA HANAMAPPA @
HIREHANUMAPPA KOUJAJI
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANNAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583277
SRI.AMARESH @ AMBERASH
S/O. HANAMAPPA @ HIREHAMANAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS
7 LAXMAVVA W/O. AMARESH @ AMBARESH KOUJAJI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANNAL B CAMP
TAVARAGERA, DIST: KOPPAL
8 SRI.VENKATESH S/O. AMARESH @
AMBERESH KOUJAJI
AGE: 28 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANNAL GOURIPURA
TQ: KANAKAGIRI
9 SRI. SRINATHA AMARESH @ AMBARESH KOUJAJI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANNAL B CAMP, TAVARAGERA
TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST.KOPPAL 583 277
10. SRI.SHYAMANNAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA @ HIRE
HANAMAPPA KOUJAJI
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KANNAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI
DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-583277
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. H. PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8 & R10)
-4-
WP No. 103562 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING
NO.PRAKARANA/SANKE.KAM/APPEALU/30/2020-21 DATED
02.12.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY
VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri. M. H. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate,
accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 5.
In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order
dated 02.12.2021 passed by the 1st respondent (Annexure-C),
accepting the revision petition filed by the contesting respondents
herein.
2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this case are that,
the father of the respondents have filed suit in O.S.No.102/2008,
before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kushtagi, seeking the relief
of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and
WP No. 103562 of 2022
the said suit came to be decreed ex-parte by judgment and decree
dated 04.03.2009 and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
have filed R.A.No.21/2016 before the Senior Civil Judge at
Kushtagi and the appeal preferred by the petitioners came to be
allowed by setting aside the order dated 04.03.2009 passed in
O.S.No.102/2008. It is further stated in the writ petition that the 2nd
respondent herein, by order dated 25.11.2019, having taken note
of the orders passed by the Civil Court, directed the revenue
authorities to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue
records including the mutation entries. However, the 1st respondent
herein without considering the material on record, by order dated
02.12.2021 (Annexure-C) passed the impugned order, and being
aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri. M. H. Patil, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5 and Sri. Sadiq N.
Goodwala, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 8
and 10.
4. Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the
WP No. 103562 of 2022
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.21/2016. It is submitted that, any interference made by the
Revenue Authorities pursuant to the suit in O.S.No.102/2008
requires to be set aside and therefore, the impugned order passed
by the 1st respondent requires to be interfered with this petition.
5. Per contra, Sri Sadiq N. Goodwala, learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents argued in favour of the
impugned order. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. M.
H. Patil, contended that the Revenue Authorities are required to
consider the decree passed by the Civil Court while considering the
application seeking change of mutation entry and accordingly
sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the father
of the respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.102/2008 before the Civil
Court and the defendants therein were placed ex-parte and the trial
Court by judgment and decree dated 04.03.2009 decreed the suit.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have
preferred R.A.No.21/2016 before the First Appellate Court, which
was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in
WP No. 103562 of 2022
O.S.No.102/2008. In that view of the matter, the Revenue
Authorities, while considering the application made by the parties
relating to mutation entries, shall consider the judgment and decree
passed by the Civil Court, where the parties have established their
right over the schedule properties, particularly in the present case,
suit filed by the father of the respondents was set aside by the First
Appellate Court.
7. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the
impugned order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the 1st respondent
(Annexure-C) shall be set aside and the order passed by the 2nd
respondent dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure-B) be restored.
8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the 1st respondent (Annexure-C)
is set aside. The order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner i.e., 2nd respondent herein, is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
