Karnataka High Court
Sri. N. Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6910
WP No. 13750 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 13750 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
KERECHOODAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMANAHALLI POST,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560082
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHACHARI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
DHARMALINGAM 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BY ITS SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560001
2. THE THASILDAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560009
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560009.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6910
WP No. 13750 of 2023
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560009.
5. MUNIYAMMA DEAD BY LRS
5(a). SANJEEVAIAH DEAD BY LRS
(i) SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED 65 YEARS
(ii) SMT. RADHA
D/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED 50 YEARS
(iii) SMT. GEETHA
D/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED 48 YEARS
(iv) NARASAMMA
D/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED 46 YEARS
(v) SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED 44 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT KERECHOODAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMANAHALLI POST,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560082
5(b) SRI. NARASAPPA
S/O LATE VASANTHAPPA
AGED 62 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6910
WP No. 13750 of 2023
5(c) RAJA
S/O LATE VASANTHAPPA
AGED 60 YEARS
5(d) RAMA
S/O LATE VASANTHAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
5(e) GUDDAIAH
S/O LATE VASANTHAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KERECHOODAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMANAHALLI POST,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560082
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.N. MAHADESHWARAN., AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5(a) TO R5(e)
SRI. N. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AS PER ANNEXURE-C
DTD 11/01/2019, 27/09/2018 IN M.R.NO.28/18-19 AND
M.R.NO.29/18-19 R-2 R.A.NO. 386/18-19 DTD 7/4/2021 AS
PER ANNEXURE-D R-3 AND 12-06-2023 IN R.P.NO.178/2021
BY THE R-4 ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6910
WP No. 13750 of 2023
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice
for respondents No.1 to 4. Learned Counsel Sri.N.R.Naik
has entered appearance for respondents No.5(a) to 5(e)
including 5a(i) to 5a(v).
2. Though the matter is coming up for Preliminary
Hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsels on both
the side, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order
dated 27.09.2018 at Annexure-C passed by the
respondent-Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk; order dated
07.04.2021 at Annexure-D passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division and order
dated 12.06.2023 at Annexure-D passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru District.
4. Smt. Muniyamma, respondent No.5 had filed an
original suit in O.S.No.946/1990 seeking partition and
NC: 2024:KHC:6910
separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The
petitioner herein is defendant No.1, while there are two
more defendants, defendant No.3 being
Smt.Parvathamma. The suit was decreed while declaring
that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit
schedule properties. It was declared that the defendants
together are entitled for half share in the suit schedule
properties. The judgment and decree was passed on
31.01.2003. Thereafter, a regular appeal filed by the
petitioner herein along with defendant No.2 in
R.A.No.84/2003 was dismissed by a judgment and decree
dated 21.07.2006. The regular second appeal in RSA
No.2531/2006 was also dismissed by a judgment and
decree dated 09.08.2007. Thereafter, the final decree
proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff in FDP
No.3/2007. The final decree proceedings were also
concluded on 26.08.2017, directing the office to draw final
decree in terms of the Commissioner's Report in respect of
all the suit schedule properties. Consequently, the plaintiff
NC: 2024:KHC:6910
Smt.Muniyamma approached the Tahsildar and got the
revenue entries mutated in MRH No.29/2018-19.
5. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents
viz., the legal heirs of Smt.Muniyamma submits that the
mutation entries have been made in terms of the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The total
extent of land in Sy.No.63/2 is 26 guntas and accordingly,
13 guntas are shown in the name of Sri.Krishnappa, the
petitioner herein and 13 guntas are shown in the name of
Smt.Muniyamma. The challenge raised by the petitioner
before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner have been negative and consequently, the
petitioner is before this Court. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that in respect of the orders passed in
final decree proceedings, the petitioner herein has filed
R.A.No.60/2017, which is pending consideration and
therefore, the petitioner is seeking to recall the mutation
entry in terms of MRH No.29/2018-19.
NC: 2024:KHC:6910
6. During the course of these proceedings, an
impleading application in I.A.No.2/2023 has been filed at
the hands of the Smt.Parvathamma, who is defendant
No.3 in the suit. Learned Counsel Sri.N.Manohar,
appearing on behalf of the impleading applicant submits
that Smt.Parvathamma did not participate in any of the
proceedings and she was not aware of such proceedings.
However, Smt.Parvathama has also filed a regular appeal
in R.A.No.61/2017, which is pending consideration. It is
submitted that Smt.Parvathamma has also filed one more
suit in O.S.No.1129/2012 seeking partition and also a
declaration that the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.946/2007 is not binding on the plaintiff. Learned
Counsel would further submit that in MFA 1481/2018, this
Court has directed stay of all further proceedings in
O.S.No.946/1990 and FDP No.3/2007, till disposal of
O.S.No.1129/2012.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the
learned Counsels, this Court is of the considered opinion
NC: 2024:KHC:6910
that the orders passed by the respondent-Tahsildar in MRH
No.29/2018-19 is in terms of the judgment and decree
and final decree proceedings. However, the position of law
is that if there is any subsequent reversal or modification
of the judgment and decree, relevant changes will have to
be made in the land revenue record. In that view of the
matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the
impugned order passed by the respondent-Tahsildar,
Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
8. With these observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of. As and when any modification is made to the
judgment and decree passed to the trial court, the same
shall be brought to the notice of the revenue authorities
and appropriate changes will be done accordingly.
9. Pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed
of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
CT: JL
