Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajamma W/O Late H Linganna vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 July, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9158
WP No. 103603 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.103603 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O. LATE H. LINGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HALAKUNDI VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: BALLARI-583102.
2. GOUTHAM L.P.
S/O. LATE H. LINGANNA,
AGED 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HALAKUNDI VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: BALLARI-583102.
3. GADILINGA SWAMY L.
S/O. LATE H. LINGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HALAKUNDI VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: BALLARI-583102.
...PETITIONERS
BHARATHI
HM (BY SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed by BHARATHI H
SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
M
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.07.09 11:37:23
+0530
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
BALLARI-583101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI, BALLARI-583101.
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
BALLARI TALUK,
BALLARI-583101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9158
WP No. 103603 of 2024
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
BALLARI HOBLI,
BALLARI-583101.
5. SMT. B. GANGAMMA
W/O. LATE SRINIVAS,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. WARD NO.19, KURUBAR ONI,
BEHIND THAYAMMA TEMPLE,
KOULPET, HOSAPETE,
DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R4;
SRI. RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05/10/2023 IN NO.
KAM./PAHANI/539/2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for
respondents No.1 to 4. Learned counsel Sri Rajendra R. Patil
is on record for caveator/respondent No.5.
3. This petition is filed by the petitioners questioning
the order passed by the 1st respondent, who has set aside
the order of respondent No.2 and restored the entries in the
name of the appellant therein i.e., the 5th respondent herein
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9158
who is none other than the wife of late Sri Srinivas. It is the
case of petitioners that respondent No.5, and father late Sri
Srinivas and the petitioners are relatives and property in
question is a joint family property. The Tahashildar had
mutated the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue
records without taking into consideration the materials
placed by petitioners. Aggrieved by which, petitioners
approached respondent No.2 in Revenue Appeal No.350 of
2023-24. Respondent No.2 set aside the order of the 3rd
respondent-Tahashildar and ordered for restoration of the
name of husband of respondent No.5 i.e, late Sri Srinivas in
the revenue records. Aggrieved by the orders passed by
respondent No.2, a revision came to be preferred by
respondent No.5, on contest upon giving fair opportunity to
both parties, the revision petition came to be allowed and
the order of the Assistant Commissioner came to be set
aside. An order was passed to restore back the entry in the
name of respondent No.5, who was the petitioner in revision
petition. This order is questioned by the petitioners herein by
contending that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9158
same is opposed to law on the ground that an original suit
has been filed by the petitioners which is pending
adjudication in O.S.No.264/2019 and respondent No.1 ought
to have awaited the orders of the original suit rather than
restoring the name of respondent No.5 by setting aside the
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner who had
ordered the name of late Sri Srinivas, the husband of
respondent No.5 to be mutated in the revenue records.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 contends that
there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the order passed by
the 1st respondent as the order passed by the 2nd respondent
is to restore the entry in the name of a dead person that is
husband of respondent No.5, which is not permissible in law.
Hence, he has set aside the order and directed the mutation
entries to be restored in the name of respondent No.5, who
is none other than the wife of late Sri Srinivas.
5. It is not in dispute that there is an original suit
pending between the parties, which is to be adjudicated
before the Civil Court which would take its own time. What is
questioned here is the order passed by the 1st respondent to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9158
restore back the entries in the name of respondent No.5. I
do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the order passed
by respondent No.1 as it is very clearly stated in the order
impugned that the succession mutation which is ordered to
be entered would however be subject to the decision in the
original suit i.e, O.S. No.264/2019. But the order of the
Assistant Commissioner to enter the name of a dead person,
that is none other than the husband of respondent No.5 was
set aside, which is rightfully done by the 1st respondent.
Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any
interference, except for the fact which is already narrated
therein that the order of mutation entry so made in favor of
respondent No.5 would, however, be subject to the decision
rendered in O.S.No.264/2019. If at all, there is any
encumbrance, alienation or creating 3rd party interest by the
5th respondent, the same would be subject to the outcome of
the original suit and the Judgment and Decree drawn
therein. Accordingly, this petition is disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
