Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 618 (KAR)

Ningamma v. Shivarajegowda

2001-08-06

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2001
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—Though this matter is listed for orders on I.A.I. filed for vacating the stay, the same is taken up for final disposal and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. On the basis of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 14 of 1996, dated 24.8.1996, the Revenue Officer mutated the name of the Petitioner under Annexure-A in respect of the lands involved in this writ petition without giving notice to the first Respondent as he was not a party to the said suit. Aggrieved by the same the first Respondent filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. By the order at Annexure-B dated 9.12.1999 the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the katha made in favour of the Petitioner and ordered to enter the katha in favour of the first Respondent. Against that order the Petitioner preferred revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition by his order at Annexure-C dated 12.3.2001. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the orders at Annexures-B and C contending that the mutation effected pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court could not have been set aside. 3. I have perused the impugned orders. It is not in dispute that katha was in the name of the first Respondent pursuant to Mutation Entry No. 15/1995-96. At the time of changing the katha in favour of the Petitioner by Mutation Entry No. 3/1996-97, no notice was issued to the first Respondent. Since the katha made in favour of the Petitioner was in violation of principles of natural justice, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly set aside the same under Annexure-B and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly confirmed the said order. The katha made in favour of the Petitioner was on the basis of the compromise decree in the original suit in which the first Respondent was not a party. Therefore, the compromise decree was not binding on the first Respondent. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are perfectly justified and no interference is warranted in this case. 4. The katha made in favour of the Petitioner was on the basis of the compromise decree in the original suit in which the first Respondent was not a party. Therefore, the compromise decree was not binding on the first Respondent. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are perfectly justified and no interference is warranted in this case. 4. It is also seen from the statement of objections filed on behalf of the first Respondent that suit in O.S. No. 9 of 1999 is filed against the Petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Hunsur for declaration of title and the same is pending. The result of the said suit will be binding upon the parties. Hence, it is not a fit case for interference. 5. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the decision of this Court reported in 1995 (6) Kar LJ 133 (Smt. Shankarawwa Vs. Devendrappa) has no application to the facts of this case. On the other hand, it supports the impugned orders. As could be seen from paragraph 2 in that decision, one of the contention raised in that case was, since the mutation had been attested on the basis of a decree passed by the Civil Court, the procedure prescribed by Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was inapplicable. The said contention was rejected in paragraph 4 in the following manner: 4. That apart, decrees may be collusive, or may be passed on compromise entered into by the parties excluding the rights of the legitimate owners. The very fact therefore that a decree of the Civil Court has been passed would not ipso facto mean that the mutation Attesting Authority need not issue notice to all those who would be entitled to such a notice under Section 129 if the transfer of title was not by a decree but by some other mode. The first ground of attack urged by the learned Counsel therefore fails. 6. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the instant case. It follows that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.