Karnataka High Court
Durgappa Neelappa Yattinahali vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 January, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1142
WP No. 61784 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 61784 OF 2009 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. DURGAPPA NEELAPPA YATTINAHALI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULUTE,
2. HANUMANTAPPA NEELAPPA YATTINAHALLI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. CHANDRAPPA NILAPPA YATTINAHALLI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
PETITIONERS NO.1, 2 AND 3 ARE
R/O KANAVI SIDDAGERI VILLAGE
HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRCT
4. SMT.GOURAVVA W/O ISHWARAPPA BOMMALLER
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER,
SUJATA R/O BULLAPURA,
SUBHASH TQ HIREKERUR, HAVERI DISTRICT
PAMMAR ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S G KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SUJATA SUBHASH
PAMMAR
Date: 2024.01.29 AND:
03:09:22 -0800
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HAVERI.
SIDDANAGOUDA BASANAGOUDA PATIL
DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
2A. SUJATA W/O KARABASAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1142
WP No. 61784 of 2009
R/O KADUR VILLAGE
TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI
2B. SMITA W/O NARENDRA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O NEAR HALADAMMA TEMPLE
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
2C. NAGANAGOUDA W/O SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KANAVI SIDDAGERI,
TQ: RATTIHALLI, HAVERI DISTRICT
SMT. GANGA MALAVVA
DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
3. SMT. SIDDAVVA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O HARANAHALLI
SHIKARIPURA ALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
4. GUDDAPPA MALLAPPA YATTINAHALLI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KANAVI SIDDAGERI VILLAGE
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
5. REVANAPPA MALLAPPA YATTINAHALLI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KANAVI SIDDAGERI VILLAGE
TQ HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
6. ISHAPPA MALLAPPA YATTINAHALLI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KANAVI SIDDAGERI VILLAGE
TQ HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
7. SMT.CHANNAVVA W/O GUDDAPPA MASUR
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O KANAVI SIDDAGERI VILLAGE
HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT
8. SMT.DURGAVVA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA
KOTAGERI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEMAKER
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1142
WP No. 61784 of 2009
R/O KANIA, SHIKARIPUR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP, FOR R1;
SRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN ADVOCATE, FOR R2 (B & C);
R2(A), R3 TO R8 - NOTICE SERVED.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DATED
20/11/2008 IN CASE NO.RTS/RA/62/04-05, ANNEXURE-F, BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION, AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The land bearing Sy.No.13/2 measuring 04 acres situated
at Kanavi Siddageri village in Hirekerur taluka is the subject
matter of this writ petition.
2. One Neelappa and others had filed a suit in
O.S.No.29/1982 on the file of Civil Judge, Ranebennur, against
the father of the 2nd respondent and others seeking partition
and separate possession of their legitimate share, and subject
property was also one of the suit schedule properties. The said
suit came to be decreed, and in the final decree drawn, the
subject land was allotted to the share of the petitioners among
other properties.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1142
3. In pursuance of the final decree drawn, the names
of the petitioners were entered in the revenue records, vide
M.E.No.822. The 2nd respondent challenged the mutation entry
made in favour of the petitioners, before the Assistant
Commissioner concerned, who dismissed the appeal. The
Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the revisional powers
under section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, set
aside the order and remanded the matter to the Tahasildar to
reconsider the claim of the parties after issuing notices to the
interested persons. Taking exception to the same, this writ
petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the
petitioners have acquired rights over the subject land by virtue
of the final decree drawn, and the final decree is binding on the
father of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the mutation entry
effected in favour of the petitioners without issuing notices is in
conformity with section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that
the mutation entry was effected in favour of the petitioners
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1142
without issuing notices, and therefore the same is in violation
of the principles of natural justice. In support he places reliance
on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Smt.Shankarawwa and another vs. Devendrappa and
another, reported in 1995(6) Kar.L.J.133. He further
submits that the father of the 2nd respondent had purchased
the suit property in the year 1978, and since his name was
mutated, and continued as of date, therefore, prayed to dismiss
the petition.
6. Considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
7. This Court, in the case of Smt.Shankarawwa and
another (supra) held that, issuance of notice to all the
concerned before attesting mutation cannot be dispensed with
only because transfer of title is under the decree of the Court.
8. In the instant case, after the father of the 2nd
respondent was arraigned as defendant No.20 in
O.S.No.29/1982, and also he was arraigned as judgment
debtor No.20 in FDP No.2/1986, and the final decree drawn
allotting the subject land in favour of the petitioners has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1142
attained finality and binding on the father of the 2nd
respondent. Therefore, when the decree has attained finality,
there is no question of issuing notices before effecting mutation
in favour of the petitioners.
9. Even otherwise, respondent No.2 had filed a suit in
O.S.No.134/2005 for declaration of his title in respect of
subject land, and jurisdictional Civil Court vide judgment and
decree dated 07.12.2007 dismissed the suit for want of
prosecution. The decree allotting the subject land in favour of
the petitioners having attained finality, the impugned order
passed by the respondent No.1 is not sustainable in law.
10. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the 1st
respondent, at Annexure-F, is hereby quashed and the revision
petition filed by respondent No.2 stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRK
