Karnataka High Court
Veerabhadrappa And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 21 October, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7744
WP No. 202051 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 202051 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O SHARANAPPA PARMA,
AGE 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION PRIVATE SERVICE
RESIDING OF MANTHAL TALUKA BASAVAKALYAN
DISTRICT BIDAR NOW AT MUMBAI
2. JAGADEVI W/O BASAVANAPPA PARMA,
AGE 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION H H WORK
RESIDING OF MANTHAL TALUKA BASAVAKALYAN
DISTRICT BIDAR
3. SWATHI D/O VEERABHADRAPPA PARMA,
AGE 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION STUDENT RESIDING OF
MANTHAL TALUKA BASAVAKALYAN DISTRICT BIDAR
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. YASHAS S. DIKSHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, V
IDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01
2. THE TAHASILAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7744
WP No. 202051 of 2023
BIDAR-585401
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BASAVAKALYAN-585327
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR 585401
5. SHOBHA W/O BHIMANNAJYOTEPPA,
AGE: ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION H H WORK
RESIDING OF MUCHALAMB TALUKA HULSOOR,
DISTRICT BIDAR 585327
6. SULABHA W/O BASAVARAJHATTE,
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION H H WORK
RESIDING OF MADAJ TALUKA OMERGA DISTICT
OSMANABAD-413606
7. SHEELA W/O CHANDRAKANT PARANDE,
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION HH WORK
RESIDING OF MADAJ TALUKA OMERGA DISTRICT
OSMANABAD 413606
8. MANGALA W/O RAJSHEKARPATIL,
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD WORK
RESIDING OF 8-9-271-A/B-21 SHRISHARAN OPP DR
KRISHNARAO HOSPITAL GURUNANAK COLONY,
BIDAR 585401
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R5 TO R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT
MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER AT
ANNEXURE-A DATED 01.12.2022 BEARING NO. PASSED BY DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY ASST.
COMMISSIONER AND THE COURT MAY PLEASED TO ORDER TO
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7744
WP No. 202051 of 2023
ENTER THE NAME OF PETITIONER NO.3 AND ENTER THE NAME OF
PETITIONER NO.2 AS JAGADEVI U/O BASAVANAPPA BY DELETING
THE EXISTING JAGADEVI U/O PRAKASH, ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN B GROUP,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
1. This petition is directed against the impugned
order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the respondent No.3-
Assistant Commissioner which was confirmed by the
impugned order dated the 01.12.2022 passed by the
respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner and for other reliefs.
2. In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the
order dated 01.12.2022 bearing No.Kum/Appealu/R.P.No.11/
2021-22 passed by the Deputy Commissioner upholding the
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, produced at
Annexure-A.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that the petitioner No.1 was the son of one late Sharanappa
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7744
who had one more son, Basavanappa who expired leaving
behind his wife Jagadevi i.e. petitioner No.2 and alleged
adopted daughter Swati i.e. petitioner No.3. It is a matter of
record that upon the demise of Basavanappa, the revenue
records got mutated into the names of aforesaid Jagadevi,
Swati and Veerabhadrappa. Subsequently the respondent
Nos.5 to 8 who are none other than the daughters of the
aforesaid Sharanappa challenged the aforesaid mutation
entry passed by the Tahasildar by filing an appeal before the
Assistant Commissioner who proceeded to allow the same by
passing the impugned order which was confirmed by the
Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order dated
01.12.2022. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by
the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner,
petitioners are before this Court by way of the present
petition.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that while the petitioners herein claim to be the absolute
owners in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the subject properties, the respondent Nos.5 to 8 specifically
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7744
contend that they are entitled to a share in the subject
properties and have already instituted a suit for partition and
other reliefs in O.S.No.41/2019 against the petitioners herein
which is currently pending before the Senior Civil Judge. In
this context, it is needless to state that the entries in the
revenue records in respect of subject lands would necessarily
have to be made pursuant to the final Judgment and decree
to be passed in the said suit.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the name of petitioner No.2-Smt. Jagadevi,
whose husband was Basavanapa, is shown as wife of her
divorced husband Prakash and the respondent No.2 may be
directed to correct the said entry.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.5 to 8 would submit that, the said entry in the revenue
records describing petitioner No.2 as wife of Basavanappa, is
to be made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the parties.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7744
7. Under these circumstances, without expressing
any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I
deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition
directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4-State and its authorities
to change the revenue records in relation to the subject
properties, pursuant to the final Judgment and decree to be
passed in O.S.No.41/2019 pending before the Civil Court.
8. It is further directed that any observations,
findings, etc., made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the
impugned orders would not be binding upon the civil Court
and the civil Court will adjudicate upon the suit without being
influenced by the findings, observations, etc., if any, in the
impugned orders.
9. All rival contentions and all aspects of the matter
are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
10. It is further directed that the respondent No.2-
Tahasildar, shall change the description of petitioner No.2-
Jagadevi as wife of Basavanappa in the place of Jagadevi
wife of Prakash in the revenue records, which would be
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7744
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties
and subject to the final outcome of the suit.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SVH
