Smt Kasturi Alias Sanvakka ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 7611 Kant

                                                  -1-
                                                        NC: 2023:KHC-D:13059
                                                          WP No. 105919 of 2023




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                                BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 105919 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

                      BETWEEN:

                      SMT. KASTURI @ SANVAKKA SHANKAR BARAGOLI,
                      AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                      R/O. URABINATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                            REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA,
                            AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
                            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

                      2.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                            BELAGAVI-590 001.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
                      3.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B                BELAGAVI SUB-DIVISION,
SHELAR
Date: 2023.11.10            BELAGAVI-590 001.
11:55:46 +0530


                      4.    THE TAHASILDAR,
                            HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI,
                            DIST: BELAGAVI-591 309.

                      5.    SHRI ASHOK ISHWARAPPA KATTIMANI
                            AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                            R/O.BASAVAMAGAR GHATAPRABHA
                            TQ:GOKALE
                            NOW R/O. DUPADAL-GHATAPRABHA,
                            TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
                                      -2-
                                           NC: 2023:KHC-D:13059
                                               WP No. 105919 of 2023




6.   SHRI BASAVANI SATTEPPA BANNANNANAVAR
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. RATNADEEP VASANT GALLI NO.2,
     GANGA NAGAR ICHALAKARANJI,
     TQ. HATAKANAGALA, DIST: KOLHAPUR,
     MAHARASHTRA STATE.

7.   SHRI. BALAPPA SATTEPPA BANNANNANAVAR
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. RATNADEEP VASANT GALLI NO.2,
     GANGA NAGAR ICHALAKARANJI,
     TQ. HATAKANAGALA, DIST: KOLHAPURA,
     MAHARASHTRA STATE.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI. S. A. MALLAPURE, ADV. FOR C/R5)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 03/08/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
IN RB/RTA/290/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                                ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for

the respondents No.1 to 4.

2. The petitioner is questioning the orders passed by

Tahasildar and the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi. The

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13059 WP No. 105919 of 2023

petitioner admittedly filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.79/2021

on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri, Belagavi. During the

pendency of the suit, petitioner obtained an order of temporary

injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit

schedule property. The said order was in force for some time,

later it was not extended. Thereafter, the respondent sold the

entire suit schedule property to three parties. Based on the

registered sale deed, Tahasildar, Belagavi entered the names of

the purchasers without issuing notice to the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the certification of mutation, petitioner filed an

appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Belagavi. Assistant

Commissioner, Belagavi allowed the appeal under Section

136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and ordered

for restoration of the name of the vendor in the property

records. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner is

questioned by the defendant/vendor before the Deputy

Commissioner, Belagavi by filing revision petition. Revision

petition is allowed and mutation entry based on the registered

sale deed is upheld.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13059 WP No. 105919 of 2023

3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the

Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, the petitioner is before this

Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the suit for partition is still pending adjudication before the

competent Civil Court and the defendant could not have sold

the property as there is a cloud about the title to the suit

schedule property. He would further submit that since the sale

transaction has taken place during the pendency of the suit the

revenue authority ought not to have certified the mutation

based on the sale transaction till the conclusion of the

proceeding in the pending suit. Learned counsel in support of

his contention would also refer to the judgment of the co-

ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Basappa vs. The

Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur and others in

W.P.No.1973/2004 and would urge that till the disposal of

the suit the entry could not have been certified.

5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at

the bar.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13059 WP No. 105919 of 2023

6. Admittedly, when the sale transaction took place

there was no prohibitory order passed against the defendant

from alienating the suit schedule property. Merely because the

suit is filed, it does not mean that the party to the proceedings

is prevented from alienating the suit schedule property.

Moreover, it is well-settled principle of law that once there is a

registered document evidencing a transaction, the revenue

authority is bound to act on the said documents to make

necessary changes in the property records. Tahasildar followed

the said principle and has certified the mutation based on the

registered sale deed. Though it is noticed that Tahasildar has

not issued any notice to the plaintiff before certifying the

mutation entry it is relevant to note that plaintiff's name was

not found in the property records when the property was sold

by the defendant. This being the position, Tahasildar was not

under obligation to issue notice before certification of the

mutation entry. Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the

revision as the Assistant Commissioner erroneously rejected

the certification of mutation based on the registered sale deed,

though there is an order to certify the name of the purchaser

based on the registered sale deed.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13059 WP No. 105919 of 2023

7. Though reliance is placed on the judgment of

co-ordinate bench of this Court in Basappa supra, it is to be

noticed that in the said case the Court has not noticed the

previous judgments of the co-ordinate bench of this Court.

Hence, the said order is per incurium.

8. This Court is of the view that since the suit is

pending before the competent Civil Court and certification of

mutation entry in the name of the purchaser should not be

construed as declaration of title in favour of the purchaser. The

purchaser having purchased the property during the pendency

of the suit is bound by the judgment of the competent Civil

Court. Civil Court shall decide the suit without being influenced

by any of the observations made by the Assistant

Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi or being

influenced by the dismissal of the present Writ Petition as this

Court has not adjudicated the rights of the parties to the

proceedings before the trial Court. The trial court shall decide

the case on merits after considering the evidence to be led by

the parties.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13059 WP No. 105919 of 2023

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is not entertained.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GVP