Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 948 (KAR)

Papamma v. State Of Karnataka

2013-08-20

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2013
Judgment : 1. Writ petitioners are wife and son of late Munikalappa respectively. Writ petitioners claim that late Munikalappa was the owner of an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.123/1 situated at Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. 2. It is the version of the petitioners that on the demise of late Munikalappa, petitioners claim they are the successors to the property of late Munikalappa along with one Chandra - elder son of 1st petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioners that in the capacity as legal heirs while they were entitled to succeed to the property of late Munikalappa, some differences arose in the family. The elder son of late Munikalappa and 1st petitioner had filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.1564/2005 and the said suit is pending on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. There is some interim order operating against the petitioners in the said suit. 3. However, in the meanwhile, it appears petitioners had sought for change of revenue entries from the name of late Munikalappa to their names as legal heirs and as per the proceedings in MR.No.28/2004-2005 dated 16.10.2004 the Special Tahsildar had ordered change of revenue entries in the names of the petitioners and one Chandra -elder son of late Munikalappa. This order being given effect to and petitioners' names figuring in the revenue records in respect of the subject land, respondent Nos.5 to 19 preferred an appeal before the Asst. Commissioner, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore in RA(S) No.158/2005- 2006 contending that the subject land had been sold by Munikalappa during his lifetime by executing a GPA in favour of one V. Jitendra. He had formed a layout, made plots out of the subject land and the entire extent had been sold by Munikalappa in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 19; that they were purchasers for valuable consideration and therefore, the legal heirs do not get any right, title and interest over the property in question and accordingly sought for setting aside the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners and said Chandra. It was claimed by these persons that sale had taken place even during the year 1992 by Munikalappa to his power of attorney holder to V. Jitendra and therefore, sought for cancellation of katha in favour of legal heirs of late Munikalappa. But the Asst. It was claimed by these persons that sale had taken place even during the year 1992 by Munikalappa to his power of attorney holder to V. Jitendra and therefore, sought for cancellation of katha in favour of legal heirs of late Munikalappa. But the Asst. Commissioner while found that the sale deed executed by late Munikalappa without getting the land converted was not legal and therefore, katha cannot be made in favour of the appellants, but at the same time held that even the names of the respondents - legal heirs of late Munikalappa cannot be entered in the revenue records as late Munikalappa had executed sale deed in respect of the subject land during his life time. In such peculiar circumstances, the Asst. Commissioner ordered that the revenue entries be retained in the name of late Munikalappa as earlier and directed the parties to approach Civil Court for resolution of the dispute regarding ownership etc., as per the order dated 18.7.2007. Being aggrieved by this order petitioners had preferred revision petition to the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, but the Special Deputy Commissioner as per his order dated 12.10.2009 passed in revision petition No.124/2007-2008 found no occasion to interfere with the order of the Asst. Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition. It is aggrieved by these orders of the Asst. Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, the present writ petition. 4. Mr.H. Aravinda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urges that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and bad in law; that the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner is without notice to the petitioners and therefore, the order should be set aside. He further submits that the Deputy Commissioner and the Asst. Commissioner without verifying the title of respondent Nos.5 to 19 have allowed the appeal and therefore, the orders are liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Smt.M.C. Nagashree, learned Govt. Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 points out that these disputes regarding title cannot be gone into by the revenue authorities and therefore, parties should be left to work out their rights and remedies before the Civil Court. 6. Legal position is the same. Revenue authorities cannot go into the disputes regarding title nor this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 6. Legal position is the same. Revenue authorities cannot go into the disputes regarding title nor this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Therefore, the orders are not disturbed. However, it is open to the petitioners to work out their rights and remedies before the Civil Court vis-à-vis the respondents.