Smt Kallavva W/O Hanamantapa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 646 Kant

                             -1-




                                      WP No. 106030 of 2022




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                           BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
      WRIT PETITION NO. 106030 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)



BETWEEN:


1.     SMT KALLAVVA W/O HANAMANTAPA KURIYAVAR
       AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O. SHETTAR ONI, GANESHPET, HUBBALLI,
       TQ. HUBBALLI, DT. DHARWAD- 580 020.

2.     SMT. RATNAVVA W/O SHIVANAND GOKUL
       AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O: BALAGANUR,
       TQ AND DIST.GADAG-582102

3.     Mt. CHINNABASAVVA D/O VEERBHADRAPPA HITTALMANI
       AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O: BALAGANUR,
       TQ AND DIST.GADAG-582102

4.     SMT. RENUKA @ YALLAVVA W/O. UDCHAPPA PUJAR,
       AGE 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O. CHAKALABBI, TQ. KUNDAGOL,
       DIST. DHARWAD - 581113



                                               ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI., ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
     M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU-560001
                              -2-




                                       WP No. 106030 of 2022

     REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     DHARWAD, DC COMPOUND
     DHARWAD-580001,

3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     DHARWAD,
     MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
     DHARWAD-580001

4.   THE TAHSILDAR NAVALAGUND,
     TQ.NAVALAGUND,
     DIST.DHARWAD-581113

5.   SHRI. YALLAPPA S/O RAMAPPA ALIAS DODDARAMAPPA
     LAKKANNAVAR
     AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE,
     R/O. KALLIMATH ONI, NAVALGUND,
     TQ. NAVALGUND
     DIST.DHARWAD-581113

6.   SHRI. SHIVAPPA S/O RAMAPPA
     ALIAS DODDARAMAPPA LAKKANNAVAR
     AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
     R/O.KALLIMATH ONI, NAVALGUND,
     TQ.NAVALGUND, DIST.DHARWAD-581113

7.   SRI. MANJUNATH S/O RAMAPPA
     ALIAS DODDARAMAPPA LAKKANNAVAR
     AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC.,SERVICE
     R/O.KALLIMATH ONI, NAVALGUND,
     TQ.NAVALGUND, DIST.DHARWAD-581113



                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 03/03/2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN
RTS/M/CR/45/16-17 (RP/945/2016) VIDE ANNEXURE A INSOFAR AS
THE SAME DOES NOT SET ASIDE THE MUTATION ENTRY BEARING
ME NO.9524 VIDE ANNEXURE B.

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




                                                   WP No. 106030 of 2022

                                 ORDER

Sri. Vinayak Kulkarni, learned AGA accepts notice for

respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have

challenged the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the 2nd

respondent (Annexure-A to the writ petition).

3. Heard Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel

for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the

respondents.

4. Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the

petitioner would contend that, the petitioners came to

know about the illegal entry made in the Mutation Register

by this competent authority and immediately, the

petitioners approached the authority, however, the same

has not been considered. It is also argued that,

O.S.No.132/2016 is filed by the petitioner seeking

declaratory relief in respect of subject land and same is

pending and as such, he submitted that, the impugned

WP No. 106030 of 2022

order passed by the respondent No.2 is contrary to

records and accordingly, sought for interference by this

Court.

5. Learned AGA invited the attention of Court to

the proceedings in O.S.No.132/2016 and submitted that,

in view of the pendency of the suit, there is no infirmity in

the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on careful examination of the finding recorded by the

2nd respondent, would indicate that, O.S.No.132/2016 is

pending consideration before the competent Court and the

parties have to establish their legal right in respect of

subject land and in that view of the matter, I am of the

view that, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the

respondent No.2.

7. It is also made clear that, the revenue Court is

bound by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Civil

Court, whereby, the rights of the parties would be

crystallized in the Judgment and Decree that may be

WP No. 106030 of 2022

passed by the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, I do

not find any merit in the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner.

8. However, in view of the fact that, the parties

are yet to prove their title in O.S.No.132/2016, the record

of rights in the mutation entry shall continue till

completion of the proceedings in O.S.No.132/2016.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH