Karnataka High Court
Sri Y B Krishnappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 April, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14187
WP No. 8013 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 8013 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. Y. B. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE. MUNIBURUGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YAMALURU VILLAGE AND POST,
MARATHAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed
by JUANITA BANGALORE EAST SUB-DIVISION,
THEJESWINI K.G. ROAD, KANDHAYA BHAVANA,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE - 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
K.R. PURAM TALUK,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 036.
4. SMT. MUNIDASAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1186, RAJU COLONY,
YAMALURU VILLAGE AND POST,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14187
WP No. 8013 of 2024
MARATHAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 AND
SRI. B. R. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-A)
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:03.06.2022 PASSED IN
REVISION PETITION NO.15/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT BENGALURU AND THE ORDER DATED:14.12.2018
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER BENGALURU IN R A (BE) 145/2015-16, VIDE
ANNEXURE - L AND K RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order
dated 03.06.2022 passed by the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in
R.P.No.15/2019.
2. The undisputed disputed facts are that 4½ Guntas
of land in Sy.No.43 of Yamaluru village, Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk, which is now within the jurisdiction
of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) was
granted to Sri.Muniyappa, the father of the 4th respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:14187
herein. It is the contention of the 4th respondent that
Sri.Muniyappa had left behind a Will dated 20.02.1988
bequeathing the property in favour the 4th respondent,
who is his daughter. Sri.Muniyappa died on 04.10.1992.
One Smt.Munivenkatamma, who is said to be the
estranged wife of Sri.Muniyappa got the mutation entries
transferred in her name in terms of M.R.No.36/2004-05
dated 11.01.2005, on the basis of inheritance. The said
Smt.Munivenkatamma also left behind a registered Will
dated 16.11.2005 bequeathing property in favour of the
petitioner, who is none other than Muniyappa's brother's
son. This aspect of the matter is nevertheless, disputed
by the 4th respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner
that the said Will was got probated in P & SC.No.2/2013
before the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District on 24.11.2014. Consequent to the said probate
obtained by the petitioner, the petitioner got the mutation
transferred in his name in terms of M.R.H.8/2014-15 on
13.03.2015.
NC: 2024:KHC:14187
3. The 4th respondent herein filed an Appeal before
the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, calling in question the
two mutation entries made in fvour of
Smt.Munivenkatamma as well as the petitioner herein.
The Assistant Commissioner passed an order on
14.12.2018 noticing that in a suit filed by the 4th
respondent in O.S.No.6534/1996, the learned Additional
City Civil Judge at Bengaluru, by a judgment and decree
dated 01.03.2005 had injuncted the petitioner herein from
interfering from the peaceful possession of the property in
question and therefore the Assistant Commissioner
proceeded to allow the Appeal while setting aside the
mutation entries made in favour of the petitioner.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Deputy
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed
the Revision Petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it
was impermissible for the reveneu-authorities to sit in
judgment over an order passed by the competent civil
NC: 2024:KHC:14187
court. Learned Counsel submits that when the mutation
entries were made in favour of the petitioner based on a
probate granted by a competent court of law, the Assistant
Commissioner could not have set aside the same unless
the probate granted by the competent court was set aside
in a manner known to law.
5. Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent seeks to
submit that the property in question was earlier within the
limits of H.A.Sanitary Board and the khatha was registered
in the records of the Board. A construction was put up
even earlier and the 4th respondent was in occupation of
same and the khatha was registered in her name in the
records of H.A.Sanitary Board. After the jurisdiction was
vested with the BBMP, the khatha was continued in the
records of the BBMP and therefore, by virtue of the order
obtained by the petitioner herein at the hands of the
Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to disturb the peaceful possession of the
property in question, moreso, in the light of the judgment
NC: 2024:KHC:14187
and decree passed by the Additional City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru in O.S.No.6534/1996.
6. Having heard the learned Counsels and on
perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Assistant Commissioner, who
was considering an Appeal under Section 136(2) of the
Act, could not have sat in judgment over a probate
granted by the competent court of law. As rightly pointed
out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, liberty has
been reserved in the order of probate itself that any
person aggrieved of the probate granted to the petitioner
is free to seek cancellation of the probate. However, the
4th respondent has not questioned the probate although it
is within the knowledge of the 4th respondent. Therefore,
unless and until the probate is got set aside in a manner
known to law, the petitioner will be entitled to have his
name continued in the land records.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the
respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban
NC: 2024:KHC:14187
District in R.P.No.15/2019 and the order dated 14.12.2018
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North
Sub-Division, Bengaluru in RA (BE) 145/2015-16, are
hereby quashed and set aside. Needless to observe that
merely because the impugned orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
set aside at the hands of this Court, that will not permit
the petitioner to interfere in the peaceful possession of the
property in question, since the 4th respondent has
obtained a judgment and decree injuncting the petitioner
from interfering with the peaceful possession of the
property in question.
8. Needless to also observe that the 4th respondent
may proceed in accordance with law to get the probate
obtained by the petitioner set aside in a manner known to
law and thereafter, she may approach the revenue
authorities to get the khatha changed in her name.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
