Karnataka High Court
Narasappa S/O Thimmayya vs Smt.Maaremma W/O Basappa Pyati And Anr on 5 March, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1973
WP No. 205269 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 205269 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NARASAPPA S/O THIMMAYYA
DECEASED BY LRS,
A) TIMALAMMA W/O NARASAPPA
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
B) TIMAPPA S/O NARASAPPA
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
C) MALLIKARJUN S/O NARASAPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
D) DODDA NAGAMMA
D/O NARASAPPA
Digitally signed AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI
Location: High E) BASAWARAJ S/O NARASAPPA
Court Of AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
Karnataka
F) MAHADEVAPPA S/O NARASAPPA
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
G) SANNA NAGAMMA D/O NARASAPPA
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
ALL ARE R/O KATLATKUR
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1973
WP No. 205269 of 2016
AND:
1. SMT.MAREMMA W/O BASAPPA PYATI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ASHAPUR, TQ & DIST: RAICHUR.
2. THE MAINTENANCE & WELFARE
OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS
TRIBUNAL AND THE ASST.
COMMISSIONER RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY R-1 IS SERVED;
SMT. MAYA T. R., HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OF THE
KIND AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED- 24.12.2015
IN FILE NO. SUM/KUM/HINARAKA/02/2015-16 OF THE
RESPONDENT NO. 2 AS PER ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT
PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Varun Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.2.
2. Annexure-D is the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner purportedly acting under Section 5 of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1973
2007, on the request made by Smt. Maremma, who is the first
respondent in this writ petition.
3. Facts of the case in brief are as under:
Property originally belongs to one Basappa Pyati. After his
death, his sons namely; Mareppa and Mallikarjuna sold the
property in favour of the writ petitioner through a registered
sale deed dated 17.08.1996. Thereafter, first respondent
Maremma filed a suit in O.S.No.267/2011 on the file of I
Additional Civil Judge, Raichur. Suit on contest came to be
dismissed by judgment dated 08.12.2015.
4. Despite the dismissal of the suit, first respondent
Maremma had approached the Assistant Commissioner under
Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 for cancellation of the mutation entries.
5. The Assistant commissioner by impugned order at
Annexure-D allowed the application and cancelled the mutation
entry.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before
this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1973
7. Sri Varun Patil, learned counsel for petitioner,
reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contended
that when once the Civil Court already taken note of the fact
that the sale deed of the petitioner is valid and dismissed the
suit of the first respondent and also taken the note of the fact
that Maremma is a consenting witness to the sale deed,
Assistant Commissioner did not get any jurisdiction to cancel
the revenue entries, that too in an application filed under
Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Pleader contended
that the provisions of Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, vests the power in the
Assistant Commissioner to hold an enquiry and pass
appropriate orders and therefore, sought for passing the
suitable orders in the writ petition.
9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
10. Grievance of the first respondent before the
Assistant Commissioner is that her husband is the owner of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1973
property bearing Sy.No.305/3 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas and
she wanted the revenue entries in favour of the writ petitioner
to be cancelled. Such an application was made under Section 5
of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act.
11. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is the purchaser of
the said property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated
17.08.1996. Property originally belonged to one Basappa Pyati.
After his death, sons of Basappa Pyati namely; Mareppa and
Mallikarjuna, sold the property in favour of the writ petitioner.
Thereafter, revenue entries have been mutated in the name of
the writ petitioner.
12. The suit came to be filed by the first respondent
before the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.267/2011. Suit on
contest came to be dismissed.
13. Therefore, remedy of the first respondent lies
elsewhere and not to approach the Assistant Commissioner for
change of mutation entries.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1973
14. This aspect of the matter has not been properly
considered by the learned Assistant Commissioner and passed
the order at Annexure-D which is per se illegal.
15. Therefore, following order is passed:
ORDER
Writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 24.12.2015 in file
No:SUM/KUM/HINARAKA/02/2015-16 marked at Annexure-D
stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MR
