Karnataka High Court
Smt Narayanamma vs State Of Karnataka on 5 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30839-DB
WA No. 303 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/AT NO.124, CHIKKABASAWANAPURA,
VIRGONAGAR POST,
K.R. PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DANAPPA PRADHANAPPA PANIBHATE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SECRETARY,
Digitally signed REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU M.S. BUILDING,
Location: High BENGALURU - 560 001.
Court of
Karnataka
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
K.R. PURAM, BANGALURU - 560 036.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30839-DB
WA No. 303 of 2024
5. SRI R. CHANDRA
S/O. RAMAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NEAR VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE,
DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
K.R. PURAM, BANGALURU - 560 036.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.10.2023 IN WP No. 8800/2021 PASSED BY THE
THIS HON'BLE COURT SINGLE BENCH AT BENGALURU, PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDER THE HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Danappa Pradhanappa
Panibhate for the appellant and learned Additional Government
Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 4 who
appeared upon service of copy of the appeal in advance.
2. The present writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the judgment
NC: 2024:KHC:30839-DB
and order dated 30.10.2023 passed by learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition.
3. In the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner, what was
prayed was to set aside the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.118 of 2020. Further
prayer was to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the
representation dated 19.08.2020 submitted by the petitioner in
relation to the subject matter grievance.
4. The dispute centres round the mutation entry in respect of
the land property bearing Sy.No.26/1 admeasuring 4 Acres situated
at Basavanapura Village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka.
The appellant-petitioner claims to be the owner of the said
property. At the same time, it appears that the very property came
to be sold to one Mr. R.Chandra-respondent No.5 in the revisional
proceedings by respondent Nos.3 and 4 under the registered sale
deed dated 25.11.2013. On the basis of the registered sale deed,
mutation entry was effected in the name of respondent No.5 by the
Assistant Commissioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:30839-DB
4.1 It was the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner
which was challenged by the appellant-petitioner before the Deputy
Commissioner by filing revision application.
4.2 The Deputy Commissioner inter alia took the view that, he
did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of the entry
once it is effected pursuant to the registered sale deed. It was
observed that the jurisdiction would lie with the competent Civil
Court, even if the petitioner was claiming ownership of the land
sold under the registered sale deed. With such reasoning, the
revision application was dismissed.
5. When the order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged
in the writ petition, learned Single Judge noted that although the
petitioner was claiming rights over the subject matter land pursuant
to a grant order, the mutation entry which was entered into in light
of the registered sale deed between respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5
could be altered only if the petitioner could establish his titular right
over the property in a civil proceeding.
5.1 The following reasoning was supplied by learned Single
Judge to dismiss the petition, extracting from para 8 of the order,
NC: 2024:KHC:30839-DB
"The petitioner herein claims right over the
schedule property based on the order dated 31.08.1978,
wherein the grant has been made in favour of
Smt.Narayanamma W/o Late Hanumanthappa by the
respondent-government in respect of the subject land,
and petitioner herein claims to be cultivating the subject
land till today. However, the perusal of the writ papers
would indicate that the petitioner herein has filed
O.S.No.25588/2017 before the Civil Court, Bangalore in
respect of the land in question. It is also forthcoming
from the finding recorded by both the respondent-
authorities that respondent No.3 herein has arrived at a
conclusion that the subject land was never considered
as a government land and accordingly, based on the
absolute sale deed dated 25.11.2013 registered in book
No.KRI-I-06109-2016-17 produced by the contesting
respondent to change the revenue records in relation to
the petition schedule property and in terms of Section
129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, both the
respondent-authorities have concluded that the name of
the contesting respondent shall be entered in the
revenue records."
6. The aforesaid reasoning eminently informs the position of the
law that once the registered sale deed is executed, the mutation
based thereon would be justified and could not be altered unless
any party establishes his right and title adverse to the mutation
holder in the proceedings of civil suit.
6.1 It is to be noted that Original Suit No.25588 of 2017 instituted
by the appellant-petitioner in respect of the very property is
pending. In the said civil suit even the prayer is made to set aside
the sale deed executed by respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.
NC: 2024:KHC:30839-DB
6.2 Although learned advocate for the petitioner tried to submit
that the said suit is only for injunction, it is no answer to set at
naught the mutation entry effected pursuant to a registered
document.
6.3 Learned Single Judge committed no error in upholding the
order of the Deputy Commissioner in the revision application
confirming the mutation entry effected by the Assistant
Commissioner.
7. The appeal stands meritless and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU
