Karnataka High Court
Mahadevappa vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 28 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:593
WP No. 203457 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.203457 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVAPPA S/O NINGAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560001.
by SACHIN
Location: High 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Court Of LINGASUGURU, DIST. RAICHUR-584122.
Karnataka
3. THE TAHASILDAR
MASKI, DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
HIREDINNI VILLAGE, TQ. MASKI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
HIREDINNI VILLAGE, TQ. MASKI
DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:593
WP No. 203457 of 2023
6. AYYAMMA, DIED
THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 18
ARE THE LRS AND THEY ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.
7. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O LATE TIMMANNA
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, HALAPUR HOBLI,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
8. YELLAPPA S/O LATE DODDA YELLAPPA
AGE: 14 YEARS,
MINOR UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF
HIS NATURAL MOTHER SMT. EARAMMA
W/O DODDAPPA YELLAPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, HALAPUR HOBLI,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
9. YELLAMMA D/O LATE DODDA YELLAPPA
AGE: 12 YEARS,
MINOR UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF
HIS NATURAL MOTHER SMT. EARAMMA
W/O DODDAPPA YELLAPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, HALAPUR HOBLI,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
10. SRIVAMMA D/O LATE DODDA YELLAPPA
AGE: 10 YEARS,
MINOR UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF
HIS NATURAL MOTHER SMT. EARAMMA
W/O DODDAPPA YELLAPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, HALAPUR HOBLI,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
11. MAYAMMA D/O LATE DODDA YELLAPPA
AGE: 08 YEARS,
MINOR UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF
HIS NATURAL MOTHER SMT. EARAMMA
W/O DODDAPPA YELLAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:593
WP No. 203457 of 2023
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, HALAPUR HOBLI,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
12. EARAMMA
W/O LATE DODDA YELLAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, HALAPUR HOBLI,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
13. SMT. NINGAMMA W/O NINGAPPA
DIED LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.
14. TIMMANNA S/O SANNA YELLAPPA
AGE: MAJOR OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, HALAPUR HOBLI,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
15. KUMAR AMARESH S/O MARIAPPA
MINOR UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF
HIS FATHER MARIYAPPA S/O NINGAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, HALAPUR HOBLI,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
16. SMT. SHIVABASAMMA W/O SANNA YELLAPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, HALAPUR HOBLI,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
17. SMT. HULIGEMMA W/O MARIAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREDINNI VILLAGE, HALAPUR HOBLI,
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
18. SMT. MUTTAMMA D/O LATE HULIGEPPA
W/O LATE YELLAPPA
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O KONAPURPET POST MANVI
TQ. MASKI DIST. RAICHUR-584124.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:593
WP No. 203457 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
08.08.2023 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
LINGASUGURU, IN SAN/KAN / RRT/ APPEAL/ 06/2023, VIDE
ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order bearing No.
San/Kan/RRT/Appeal/06/2023 dated 08.08.2023 passed by
respondent No.2, by which revenue records were changed in
respect of properties bearing Sy.No. 157/*/2, 157/*/3,
180/*/1 and 180/*/7 of Hiredinni village, Tq. Maski, Dist.
Raichur.
2. The petitioner contends that a suit in OS No.54/2007
was filed for partition and separate possession by respondent
Nos.16 and 17 against Smt. Ayyama and others concerning
properties in Sy.No.157/B and 180/B of Hiredinni village. An
additional relief was also sought to declare the gift deed
bearing No.3068/05-06 as null and void. The said suit after
contest was decreed on 27.08.2012 and final decree
NC: 2025:KHC-K:593
proceedings has not yet begun. When things stood thus, one of
the defendants in OS No.54/2007 filed W.P.No.204641/2014
against the Dodda Yallappa and others challenging the order
dated 23.08.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur
in Revision Petition No.23/2009-10 on the ground that the said
order was passed without considering the decree passed in OS
No.54/2007. This Court in terms of the order dated 03.04.2017
allowed the writ petition and held that the revenue Courts are
bound by the decree passed in OS No.54/2007. Nonetheless,
the said defendant executed two sale deeds dated 27.04.2015
encumbering Sy.No.157/2 in two portions. Respondent No.18
herein filed RRT appeal No.6/2023 before respondent No.2
under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
challenging the mutation brought about in respect of the
aforesaid properties. It was brought to the notice of the
respondent No.2 that by virtue of the decree in OS No.54/2007
and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.204641/2024, the
revenue Courts are bound by the decree and any mutation in
favour of respondent Nos.12, 14 and 15 herein are illegal.
Respondent No.2 passed the impugned order setting aside the
mutation and directed the name of respondent No.18 to be
NC: 2025:KHC-K:593
entered in the revenue records, in respect of her share. The
petitioner contended that this caused serious prejudice to him
as his rights are impaired. The petitioner is therefore before
this Court challenging the order passed by respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
above contentions and contended that once the Civil Court
passed the preliminary decree on partition, there is no question
of any of the defendants in the suit encumbering the property
and therefore, the entries made by respondent No.2 in the
name of respondent No.18 is improper and deserves to be
interfered with.
4. Per contra, Learned Additional Government Advocate
submitted that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings
before respondent No.2 and has fled this petition, challenging
the said order. He submits that by virtue of the judgment of
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Ashok Vs. Shri
Pandurang and Others1 as well as Srimanmaharaja
Niranjana Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra
ILR 2012 KAR 4571
NC: 2025:KHC-K:593
Mahaswamy V/s Deputy Commissioner2, the petitioner is
bound to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner
before the Deputy Commissioner in a Revision Petition under
Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner and Learned Additional Government
Advocate.
6. The petitioner is admittedly not a party to the
proceedings before respondent No.2. However, he has
challenged the order of respondent No.2, accepting the
mutation to enter the name of respondent No.18 herein in the
revenue records. No doubt, respondent No.2 must have
directed that the entries in the revenue records shall be made
following the final decree proceedings that may be initiated
pursuant to the preliminary decree in OS No.54/2007.
However, respondent No.2 instead of doing so has directed the
revenue records to be entered in the name of respondent No.18
herein.
ILR 1986 KAR 1059
NC: 2025:KHC-K:593
7. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court referred to
supra, appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file a Revision
Petition under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act.
8. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed off,
reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed
by respondent No.2 in appropriate Revision Petition filed under
Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
before the Deputy Commissioner. Any observation made
regarding the merits of the case shall not affect or influence the
revisional authority to decide the case on merits.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
NJ
CT:SI
