Karnataka High Court
Maruti Guruji S/O Late Ganesh Bhat vs The Tahasildar on 13 November, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16570
WP No. 106065 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 106065 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
MARUTI GURUJI S/O. LATE GANESH BHAT,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. BANGARAMAKKI, POST: GERUSOPPA,
TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581384.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE TAHASILDAR,
HONNAVAR TALUK,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581334.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
i. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA DATED 06.02.2024 BEARING NO.
KALMATH
Dgï.n.J¸ï.«¤¢/«ªÀ/1330/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THE WRIT PETITION AS IT IS ILLEGAL AND
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ii. CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER
IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.4A HISSA NO.1
MEASURING 02 ACRE 19 GUNTHAS AND SY.NO.5/3
MEASURING 01 ACRE 12 GUNTHAS SITUATED AT HULEGAR
VILLAGE, MAVINAKURUVA HOBLI, HONNAVAR TALUK VIDE
ANNEXURE-H AND ANNEXURE-J4 TO THE WRIT PETITION
FORTHWITH.
iii. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS, ISSUE WRIT, MANDAMUS,
DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16570
WP No. 106065 of 2024
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TO MEET THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Objections raised by the Registry, is overruled.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader is
directed to take notice for the respondent.
3. This petition is filed by the petitioner to quash
the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent
dated 06.02.2024 at Annexure-G and for a writ of
mandamus for a direction to the respondent to enter the
name of the petitioner in the record of rights.
4. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the
property which is in dispute. There was certain litigation
between the family members. However, the parties
approached this Court in W.P.No.104079/2016 and the
matter was referred to the mediation centre for resolving
the dispute amicably. Accordingly, the parties entered into
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16570
a settlement amongst themselves in W.P.No.104079/2016
and a decree came to be passed in O.S.No.10/2012. The
immovable properties, i.e., Group-1 fell to the share of the
petitioner, Group-2 fell to the share of his brother and
Group-3 fell in the name of the petitioner, agreed to be
conveyed in the name of the elder brother. Accordingly,
arrangement was made on the basis of the terms and
conditions in the settlement agreement and a decree has
been passed accordingly.
5. The petitioner thereafter made a representation
to the revenue authorities to enter his name in the record
of rights and mutate his name as per the decree passed by
the trial Court, by furnishing copy of the decree as well as
the copy of the gift deed. The petitioner has also furnished
copy of the orders in W.P.No.104079/2016, requesting the
respondent to change the khata in his favour in respect of
12 items of immovable properties vide representations
dated 22.05.2023 26.10.2023 as per Annexures-E and F.
6. The respondent instead of adhering and
complying the judgment passed in O.S.No.10/2012 by way
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16570
of a compromise and the writ petition order in
W.P.No.104079/2016, rejected the representation on the
ground that 11E sketch is not furnished and therefore, the
representation is not considered. Hence, the petitioner is
before this Court.
7. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that once a decree is passed by
way of compromise under orders passed by this Court in
W.P.No.104079/2016, referred the matter to the
mediation and parties have settled amicably. The
respondent is duty bound to enter the names of the
petitioner in accordance with the compromise decree,
instead doing so, the respondent has rejected the
representation on the ground that 11E sketch is not
produced by the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the order passed is unsustainable, as there is no such
requirement for production of 11E sketch for mutation and
change of khata. The respondent is duty bound to affect
the name of the petitioner in the record of rights once
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16570
there is registered document or when there is an order of
the Court of a decree, he cannot sit over the judgment of
a decree and summon the document from the petitioner in
the nature of 11E sketch.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader
representing the State sustains the order passed by the
respondent, on the ground that the order does not stem
from any illegality or arbitrariness, as it is required to
produce 11E sketch to show the names of the petitioner in
the record of rights. It is also submitted that the
respondent would consider entering the name in
accordance with law.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the respondent, it is not in dispute that
there is a judgment of decree by way of compromise
which has been produced by the petitioner to the
respondent and so also the copy of the writ petition order
referring the matter to mediation centre, which is ended in
a compromise between the parties. Therefore, when there
is an order passed by a Civil Court with regard to dispute
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16570
having been settled and decree is passed, the respondent
Tahasildar is duty bound to register the name in the record
of rights as per the decree drawn by the Court, which is
furnished to him by the petitioner, along with the
representation made for change of khata and for change of
entry.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a
Circular dated 14.11.2016 issued by the Director of
BHOOMI and UPOR, which dispenses the production or
requirement of form 11E sketch, wherever there is Court
decree. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned endorsement dated 06.02.2024
vide Annexure-G, is hereby quashed.
Consequently, a writ of mandamus is issued,
directing the respondent to enter the name of
the petitioner in respect of land bearing
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16570
guntas situated at Hulegar village,
Mavinakuruva Hobli, Honnavar taluk vide
Annexure-H ad J4, without insisting on
production of 11E sketch.
iii. The same shall be complied within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
the order.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
KGK
CT-MCK
