Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1020 (KAR)

Kondappa v. Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District

2015-09-01

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2015
ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. It is a matter of record that respondent 4 when arraigned as respondent before the Sheristedar, in a proceeding under Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('Act' for short), did not respond to the notice and was absent, while in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, the 4th respondent, filed statement that she was a subsequent purchaser of the immovable property in question from 5th respondent-Smt. Venkatalakshmamma, whose husband had purchased the said property from one Gurappa, during the pendency of O.S. No. 449 of 1973 instituted by said Gurappa arraigning petitioner as defendant in respect of immovable property in question, and that suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17-4-1976 declining the relief of declaration that he is the owner of the immovable property in question, followed by dismissal of R.A. No. 150 of 1976 by judgment and decree dated 9-10-1979. So also, in the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, the said 4th respondent when arraigned as party respondent 1 was represented by learned Counsel. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that 4th respondent is the purchaser of the immovable property under a sale deed executed by 5th respondent on 18-10-1985, while 5th respondent's husband purchased the said property on 20-5-1974 from Gurappa during pendency of O.S. No. 449 of 1973 filed by Gurappa for declaratory relief over land in question arraigning petitioner as defendant and had suffered judgment and decree dated 17-4-1976 which was affirmed by dismissal of R.A. No. 150 of 1976 by judgment and decree dated 9-10-1979 and therefore, respondent 4 the purchaser pendente lite, had no subsisting right to claim title to the immovable property in question since her vendor-in-title had no right to convey. Learned Counsel submits that notice on respondent 5 in this petition is unnecessary since admittedly has no subsisting right in the property in question. In that view of the matter, service of notice on respondent 5 is held to be unnecessary. 2. Petitioner is said to have instituted O.S. No. 86 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, KGF arraigning one Mallappa and another Muniyappa for permanent injunction in respect of immovable property being agricultural lands in Sy. In that view of the matter, service of notice on respondent 5 is held to be unnecessary. 2. Petitioner is said to have instituted O.S. No. 86 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, KGF arraigning one Mallappa and another Muniyappa for permanent injunction in respect of immovable property being agricultural lands in Sy. No. 39 measuring 4 acres which was decreed by judgment and decree dated 16-12-1972, Annexure-A. One Gurappa, S/o Papanna Boyi instituted O.S. No. 449 of 1973 before the Munsiff, KGF, arraigning petitioner as defendant for declaration of title to the immovable property in question. That suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17-4-1976 and affirmed by dismissal of R.A. No. 150 of 1976 by judgment and decree dated 9-10-1979, of the Additional Civil Judge, Kolar. 3. Armed with the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 449 of 1973 recording clear findings on issues 3(a) and 3(b) that petitioner is the grantee in possession of the land in question, petitioner filed a petition informing the Prescribed Officer of acquisition of right, title and interest in the said property and to have his name recorded in the revenue records under the 'Act'. That application was registered as RRT proceeding under Section 129 of the 'Act' and notice issued to respondents 4 and 5 arraigned therein as respondents, whereafterwards, R.R. Sheristedar of Malur Taluk, by order dated 16-5-1994, Annexure-D, declined to record the name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the premise that the 4th respondent and many others obtained sale deeds from Gurappa and their names were recorded in the mutation registers. That order when carried in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner invoking sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the 'Act' was confirmed by order dated 9-1-2003, Annexure-E, dismissing the appeal. Further revision petition under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the 'Act' before the Deputy Commissioner, led to the order dated 24-2-2006, Annexure-F, directing parties to the Civil Court for necessary reliefs. Hence this petition. 4. Indisputably, the judgment and decree dated 16-12-1972 in O.S. No. 86 of 1971 recorded a finding that petitioner was in possession of the property in question and the defendants therein by name Mallappa and Muniyappa were permanently injuncted from interfering with the petitioner's lawful possession of the said property. Hence this petition. 4. Indisputably, the judgment and decree dated 16-12-1972 in O.S. No. 86 of 1971 recorded a finding that petitioner was in possession of the property in question and the defendants therein by name Mallappa and Muniyappa were permanently injuncted from interfering with the petitioner's lawful possession of the said property. O.S. No. 449 of 1973 instituted by Gurappa, none other than the person through whom respondents 4 and 5 claim title to the said property, that suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17-4-1976, Annexure-B, while the sale deed in favour of 5th respondent's husband was executed on 20-5-1974 during the pendency of that suit. In that suit, issues 3(a) and 3(b) related to right, title and interest of petitioner in the said immovable property which was answered in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner. 5. In the light of the aforesaid judgments and decrees in the two suits, it cannot be said that petitioner had no right, title and interest in the immovable property in question, while, right, title and interest acquired by respondent 4 through respondent 5 who inturn had acquired the same through one Gurappa during pendency of O.S. No. 449 of 1973 and failed in the suit hence did not obtain any right, title or interest over the said property, when not understood by Sheristedar, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner has occasioned miscarriage of justice. The rejection of petitioner's claim by recording a finding that 4th respondent and 5th respondents names was already recorded and that Gurappa was the maternal uncle of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances is illegal and unsustainable. The Sheristedar had no jurisdiction to record findings of facts over title to immovable property. 6. In that view of the matter, the order of the Sheristedar cannot but be interfered with. Sequentially orders of Assistant Commissioner in Appeal and the Deputy Commissioner in revision must necessarily fail. In the result, this petition is allowed. Orders impugned of the Revenue Authorities are quashed. The Prescribed Officer is directed to record the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of land measuring 4 acres in Sy. No. 39 of Siddanahalli, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District and delete the names of 4th respondent and 5th respondent as well as Gurappa.