IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE mm DAY OF' AUGUST 2009V'A_ ._v
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A S Bop.-é:.$I:§zAk*.%Lj; J
WRIT PETITION NO. 17809 OR 2068. f&:;.R§-£zEsa~ Ak 7
BETWEEN :
SR! CHANDAN MAL
S] G LATE JAWAI-{AR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS __
R/AT NO 14, SUNDAR NAGAK, "
GOKULA POST, BANGALoRVE'34 j' =
i ;, PEFITIONER
(BY SR1 $50, A15?)
AND 2
1
THE sP'EcIA;.VVI3EP.UT**iLV COMMISSIONER
13ANGALoRE__>URBAN DISTRICT
~ _ J[_<5~;«'.r3;_<:I3_ OF THESPECIAL DEPUTY
« . 3 COMlAvI!S"r'3IV()NER,
i'3AE€«(})'xL'QR{€ URBAN DISFRICT
%RBAreGzx%Lo1§r;'
'ASLQSTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
_ YELAHANKA
' 'BANGALQREZ
TAHSILDAR
YELHANKA TALUK
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE
"3
4 SMT SHANTHA
w/0 LATE KN RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS _
R/AT NO 7, PL? SAMAJA LINK _R(3A\D :
BASAVANGUBI : " «. "
BANGALORE 04
5 SMT MUBHYAMMA
W/O LATE DYAVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R [AT CHIKKANAHALLI wLLA',Lo1§§: NORTH TALUK
8 "'SRI».SONNAPPA
sj~0'LA'r1:«: DYAVAPPA
' .. , % AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
V MAT KOBXGEHALLI VILLAGE,
' '¥"E£AHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE mama TALUK
RESPONBENTS
" " (BY SR1 R B SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP FOR RLR3}
J
r:
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES I
ANS 227 OF' THE CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA _._
QUASH THE IMPUGNEE} ORDER PASSED I"'3Y__'I'HE_"':
RESPGNDENT~1 IN REVISION PETITION NO.
UT. 11.12.2008 FOUND AT ANNEXURI§3=D.AN[I E'IIfC;--L " I
THIS PETITION comma oféa I5R.ELIIId¥§I:§Rf'ii./.:
HEARING IN 'E' GROUP THIS Dznf, TI-iEI.C£}UR'if.!§§fi;DE3 '}'HE=
FOLLOWING:
Q.;.33,§...§:E ;
The petitioner is 'Eiii the order
dated 1 1. 'paesed V. respondent-
Deputy (P) No.68/O8-09
which :’kI;iiiexureVV’I:§’ to the petition.
The f$efi3;ieIier.Ihe§9eir1 claims to be the purchaser
beaImI:IIIIg Sy.N-3.112/2 measizrm g 1 acre
Village. The said property is
I I _ saidio h:eh}*evII purchased from the fourth respondent
I a”Se:1Ie deed dated 29.12.1995. Pursuam: thereto,
thepetiiiorzer is said to have secured the mutation order
I Ibf the purpose of change of revenue entries and the
I same was ordered in M.R.Ne.22/97»~98. The contesting
«2»
4
respondent N03,’? and 8 claim to be aggieved by __t.’x1e
said mutation entry. They contend that the revefI;t:e_
entries made in their names vide M.R.No.2/ *
the appropriate entry, since they: have it 2
property in question and in this rei”‘gar£f..,i reference’ is
made to the earlier traI1saetio11,r:’f1i€?€Pi19:’g»i11 View total
extent of the land in the the
acquisition as Well as the other. which have
taken place iI1_respect of the_:’Vsaid”‘;.51’oper%;:”yi.
the instant case, the issue
is limitedenigrto of mutation orders for the
V sf rexxrenotie ‘entriee and further, since the parties
‘before the Civil Court, a detailed reference
_ fig-:*’;:11e nature of right eiaimed to the
it . property not be considered, as otherwise any of the
‘ ‘é’V’-4”’oL13ser§;ations made herein is likely to affect the interest
[of ~tiie’i1’3a1’ties. J
‘F
4. Therefore, limiting to the said aspect of
matter, the sequence in the present Case Would:-.indie$tef”‘ ~
that respondent Nos’? and 8 ii1~~t1:vat e Ki’
aggrieved by the mutation 7.:
had questioned the
Commissioner in case. SiOCG»0 1;} The
Assistant Commissioner’ the matter in
detail had dismissed against the
order dated’ .-by the Assistant
Commissioraer; 5respv0;1der1’t.,_N€)S.7 and 8 were before the
Deputy C0rumiss’ioI:ier. , H Deputy Commissioner by
his eréiexadatede ..1V_}112.v20O8 which is impugned in this
in§§’:1Li11it)1’I_:ifiaS’x’diI’€CteCi that the mutation entries be
retaii1t:dV”iIi”‘_*the~ilfiézmes of respondent Nos? and 8 herein
V -alsoi’.4’vide:JM}.RNe.2/94~95. The petitioner therefore
it V’ V be aggrieved by the erder passed by the
– ff:Depi1ty Commissioner.
3;
6
5. In order to consider this aspect of the matter,
the only relevant facts to be noticed at this
that respondent Nos?’ and 8 Claim right to
based on an earlier unregstered sale deed the K ‘
partition said to have been effected betwfieerl. 77:.
members. in this regar«2l{~..
o.s.Ne.3o4/2004 is peI1t1iI1g,t-it else ndticsdrfihat at
an earlier point in tirae; tire -petitioner Sri
K.N.Ramachandj-‘er V’ suit in
O.S.Ne,:;}58_2.A_/xIl9%33V_ same had been decreed
exparte judgment of the said suit
though l ~a.tt,a:incd;:d’ rmsmy, ma ctllminated in a
V. the Horfble Supreme Court in a Civil
__ the exparte judgment was not
V -Vinterfered: the Horfble Supreme Court had made it
u respondent Ncs.7 and 8, who were the
therein would have liberty to file an
‘ “”V:é[;iproprie.te suit to establish their title in respect of the
property in question. \£
‘tr
*3
6. It is in that context, the present suit in
O.S.No.304/2004 is filed. in the said suit, respondent
N0s.7 and 8 in addition to seeking d6C13IafiOI}.._(§f”
title have also sought for 3. judwent to ‘
deed dated 29. 12.1995, under t};[1e-VA
claims title, as nun and void, frhis-«.:¢ou1d infiieate teats ”
the entire gamut of eonsidefatiieii witgh. the
rights of the parties :arge”~«before’AAtiie Civil
Court. Keeping this aspeet:’iz1 flee’ iiipited aspect is
to consivderasi «of-the entries should remain on
record dthe VI3a’Ca1=e’: ‘ Jproteetion of right of the
dispesed of and the right as
in Civil Court is acted upon.
‘E39 Tfhe said extent, since in any event, the
ff ” fienaezj of the petitioner had earlier flied a suit and the
V. “had reached finaiity to the extent of possession
” in any event, as of now, there is registered sale deed
daied 29.12.1995 which remains valid and since based
i
“A
8
011 such registered sale deed, the mutatior} €Z’1tI’y in
M.R.No.22/1997-98 has been effected as eontemp1ai:’ed_v
under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Retfeittie _
do not see any reason to set asidethat ” ”
at this stage and therefore, to the :’said_’_’ e):tei;t,”t1:ie 1]
passed by the Deputy Com11éissionerA’isV_not
and accordingly, the same “quasheti.
8. Having so’,’V”the.V::\’.}1iestion- vge’uld aiso arise
with regard _Viiatu_z’fe-…of protecting the interest of
the parties’-arid it is made clear that even
theugifi the mfitatioii order in M.R.No.22/ 1997.93 shall
A’-._rem:-air: until the matter is resolved before the
cm}toem%é.;teu:get*rahsndar is directed to make an entry
V 1 1 of the RTC to indicate the pendeney of
voeaidvvfltsuit and to point out that there is a eivii
between the parties in the Civil Court relating to
” property regarding which the mutation entry is
entered. Such entries ‘$311 remain in farce tin the civil
‘Zr
9
dispute attains finality and the parties shall thereaiter
xeapproach the Tahsildar with the copy of the V’
seeking for necessary corrections in the matwteiifif ” _
also made clear that the said revenue’ enttj? “ae’jweH,4_’as ‘A V’
the endorsement shall remain isubjfleet
proceedings and in the civil -.}§f)’i’€)_(3(*;’€:C.i”1I1__gbT;,.VVfiiiCu”~f€V’61i;L}C
eimy shall not form the..basis-**t::{fieeigie t1ie”titIe’3or the
right of the parties and t¥:_1e ‘Cifiii will render an
independent firzdiiig .. evidence that
may be _ _ ‘
In.-texfmsauef.tl:ve petition stands disposed
‘ Sd/’3
Iudefg