Karnataka High Court
B Nayanappa S/O Late Sri Dodda ... vs B Ramaiah S/O Late Sri Dodda Honnurappa on 31 July, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10795-DB
WA No. 100730 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.100730 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
B. NAYANAPPA S/O LATE SRI DODDA HONNURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT. KORLAGUNDI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT 583103.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B. RAMAIAH S/O LATE SRI DODDA HONNURAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
by JAGADISH T
R
R/AT. KORLAGUNDI VILLAGE,
Location: High BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT 583103.
Court of
Karnataka
Dharwad Bench 2. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
KORLAGUNDI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT 583103.
3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
KOLUUR HOBLI, BALLARI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT 583103.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DISRICT 583103.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BALLARI SUB DIVISION, BALLARI 583103.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10795-DB
WA No. 100730 of 2023
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI 583103.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.5386/2007 (KLR, RR-SUR) DATED 01.12.2021, ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
1. This Intra Court Appeal seeks to call in question
a learned Single Judge's judgment dated 01.12.2021,
whereby respondent's W.P. No.5386/2007 (KLR-RR/SUR)
having been favoured the impugned order of the Deputy
Commissioner made under Section 136(3) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the 1964
Act'), has been set at naught.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10795-DB
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently argues that the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge has errors apparent on the face of the record
inasmuch as he failed to notice the anomalies appearing in
the Civil Court's judgment suffered by both the sides i.e.,
appellant's partition suit in O.S.No.244/2011 was
dismissed on 28.11.2019 and writ petitioner's suit in
O.S.No.189/2007 had also met the same fate on
02.03.2015. She hastens to add that sofar as the outcome
of suit proceedings are concerned, both the sides stand on
par and therefore, regardless of the outcome thereof, the
Deputy Commissioner, in his revisional jurisdiction, had
brought about a just result which could not have been
voided in the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State and its
official makes submission in justification of the impugned
order contending that, the learned Single Judge having
examined all aspects of the matter has made the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10795-DB
impugned order and that there is, absolutely, no warrant
for interfering therein.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and the learned advocate appearing for the
official respondents, and having perused the appeal
papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as
the order of the learned Single Judge is founded on the
registered Gift Deed dated 18.01.1992 which was acted
upon by the Tahasildar under Section 128 and by the
Assistant Commissioner in the appeal under Section 136 of
the Act. In fact, this Gift Deed has been referred to by the
civil Court in appellant's O.S.No.189/2007 as forthcoming
from para 12 of the judgment. That being the position, the
Deputy Commissioner could not have exercised the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Act and
thereby upset the orders of the Assistant Commissioner
and the Tahasildar.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our
attention to the declaration suit in O.S. No.181/2002 filed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10795-DB
by the first Respondent-Writ Petitioner and its dismissal by
the civil Court on 12.04.2005. However, at para 12 of the
judgment, the Gift Deed dated 18.01.1992 has also been
referred to. This apart, the appellant's suit in O.S.
No.189/2007 mentions a partition suit in O.S.
No.244/2011 is still pending before the Principal Civil
Judge, Ballari. Therefore, the outcome of the said suit will
have bearing on the matter. Till then, the entries made on
the basis of registered Gift Deed of 1992 will continue
subject to the result of partition suit. This view is
consistent with the proviso to Section 135 of the 1964 Act
vide Jayamma Vs. State of Karnataka1. It is also open to
the appellant to go for a declaration suit, notwithstanding
the dismissal of his injunctive suit O.S. No.189/2007 and
the entries in the revenue record shall be made in accord
with the decree in the contemplated suit.
In the above circumstances and with the above
observations, this appeal is disposed off.
(2020) SCC OnLine KAR 2011
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10795-DB
The Registry to send a copy of this judgment to all
the first Respondent immediately by Speed Post.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
VNP, CT:VP
