Karnataka High Court
The Town Municipal Council vs The Deputy Commissioner on 31 July, 2023
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar, G Basavaraja
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7929-DB
WA No. 100097 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100097 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
BADAMI, DIST.- BAGALKOT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
THE CHIEF OFFICER,
SRI.GOPAL S/O. LATE HANAMANTH KASE,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC.- CHIEF OFFICER,
R/O:: BADAMI 587201,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
ROHAN (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR
HADIMANI SRI A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
T
AND:
Digitally signed by
ROHAN HADIMANI
T
Location:
HIGHCOURT OF
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA-
DHARWAD BENCH BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
Date: 2023.08.03
15:42:53 +0530 BAGALKOT-587101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT, TQ/DIST.- BAGLKOT.
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
BADAMI TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7929-DB
WA No. 100097 of 2023
BADAMI 587201
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
4. SMT. SANGAVVA W/O. CHINNAPPA HALKURKI,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC.- AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BADAMI-587201,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
5. SRI. PUNDALIK S/O. CHINNAPPA HALKURKI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.- AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BADAMI-587201,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
6. SMT. NAGARATNA W/O. GUDADAPPA HALKURKI,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC.- AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BADAMI-587201,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
7. SRI. ANILKUMAR S/O. GUDADAPPA HALKURKI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.- AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BADAMI-587201,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
8. SRI. SUNEELKUMAR
S/O. GUDADAPPA HALKURKI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.- AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BADAMI-587201,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
9. SRI. BASAVARAJESHWAR
S/O. GUDADAPPA HALKURKI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.- AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BADAMI, TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
10. SRI.PRADEEP S/O. GUDADAPPA HALKURKI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.- AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BADAMI-587201,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7929-DB
WA No. 100097 of 2023
11. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. TUKARAM HALKURKI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.-. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BADAMI-587201,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
12. SMT VEENA W/O. DINESH WADDAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.-. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KAGALAGOMBA-587205,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
13. SRI VENKATESH S/O. TUKARAM HALKURKI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.-. AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BADAMI-587201,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
14. SMT. VANI ALIYAS VANASHRI
W/O. HANAMANT SALAPUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC.-. AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BADAMI-587201,
TQ.- BADAMI, DIST.- BAGLKOT.
15. RAJIV GANDHI HOUSING CORPORATION
LIMITED (RGHCL),
CAUVERY BHAVAN, 9TH FLOOR, C AND F BLOCK,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560009,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESP.NOS.1 TO 3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS
HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 07.12.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.100717/2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND
ACCORDINGLY TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY
THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7929-DB
WA No. 100097 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner/Town
Municipal Council, Badami is directed against the
impugned order dated 07.12.2022 passed in Writ Petition
No.100717/2017 (KLR-RR/SUR), whereby the said petition
filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed by the
Single Judge of this Court by issuing the certain directions.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. The material on record discloses that the
appellant/TMC preferred the aforesaid petition seeking
quashing of the impugned order dated 05.01.2017 passed
by the 1st respondent/Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkote
whereby the Khata/Revenue records in relation to the
subject properties were mutated into the names of private
respondents by the Tahashildar and confirmed by the
Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy
Commissioner.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7929-DB
WA No. 100097 of 2023
4. Before the learned Single Judge, the
appellant/TMC submitted that the private respondents did
not have title or possession over the subject properties
and consequently, question of mutating in the revenue
records/Khata into the names of private respondents
would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case
and as such, the revenue authorities were not justified in
mutating khata/revenue records in the names of private
respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and upon consideration of the provisions of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the learned Single
Judge of this Court held that there had not been any
adjudication of the alleged possession of the respective
parties over the subject lands and the validity of the
Consent Deed executed by the respondent No.3 in favour
of the petitioner/TMC was to be adjudicated by the
competent Civil Court and liberty in this regard was
reserved in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. While
recording the said finding, the learned Single Judge held
as under :
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7929-DB
WA No. 100097 of 2023
"8. It is undisputed that the father of the
private respondents was the absolute owner of the
possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and
after his death the name of the private
respondents, who are the legal representatives of
the deceased owner were mutated in the revenue
record and the name of the petitioner and
respondent No.3 were mutated on the basis of the
alleged consent deed executed by the private
respondents and execution of the said deed is
denied/disputed by the private respondents.
9. Even otherwise, Section 128 Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964, specifies that any person
acquiring a right has holder, occupants, owner,
mortgaging land lord or tenant of the land or
assignee of the rent or revenue thereof shall report
orally or in writing his acquisition of such rights to
the prescribed officers of the village within three
months from the date of such acquisition.
10. Section 129 of the Act, 1964, specifies
that the prescribed officer shall enter in the
registered of mutation every report made to him
under Section 128(1) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act. Conjoint reading of the Section 108
and 129 of the Act, 1964, specifies that the name
of the person acquiring right over the property by
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7929-DB
WA No. 100097 of 2023
virtue of registered document shall be mutated in
the revenue record.
11. In the instant case, the name of the
petitioner and respondent No.3 were mutated on
the basis of consent deed allegedly executed by the
private respondents conveying the lands to the
petitioner which mandatorily requires to be
registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act,
1908, since the value of the property exceed
Rs.100. Hence, the mutation entry effected in
favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject
lands is contrary to the Section 17 of the
Registration Act, and Sections 128 and 129
Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
12. The Deputy Commissioner Concerned by
taking into account the legal infirmities has rightly
passed the impugned order and the same does not
warrant any interference.
13. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
14. This Court has not adjudicated the alleged
possession of the respective parties over the
subject lands and the validity of the consent deed
executed by the respondent No.3 in favour of
petitioner and it is open for the petitioner and
beneficiaries to approach the jurisdictional Civil
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7929-DB
WA No. 100097 of 2023
Court for agitating their rights in accordance with
law."
5. Upon re-consideration, re-appreciation and re-
evaluation of the entire material on record, we are of the
considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge cannot be said to be suffering from
any illegality or infirmity, particularly when the respective
proprietary and possessory rights of the parties over the
subject properties had not been adjudicated upon by the
learned Single Judge, who had reserved liberty in favour of
the appellant/petitioner to ventilate all its grievances by
approaching the competent Civil Court and take recourse
to such remedies as available in law. Under the
circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the
impugned order dated 07.12.2022 passed in Writ Petition
No.100717/2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) clubbed with Writ Petition
No.102195/2017 by the learned Single Judge does not
warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal
and the same is accordingly disposed off.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7929-DB
WA No. 100097 of 2023
6. It is however made clear that, liberty is reserved
in favour of the appellant/petitioner/Taluka Municipal
Council, Badami to take recourse to all such remedies as
available in law, in addition to the liberty reserved in
favour of the appellant/petitioner by the learned Single
Judge.
7. Subject to the above observations and liberty, the
present appeal also stands disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKK
