IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DAT ED THIS T HE 11'?" DAY OF AUGUST 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A 3 BoPA:§N£§T:'V@ é '
WRIT PE'I'I'E'ION NO. 15888/;1{§€)'?"* {KLR
BETWEEN: Z A'
1 SR1 GOPALAPPA S/O ANNEPRA
AGED ABOUT '?2 "YEARS _ '
R/OF' DODDA GOL.LAHAL:;i*-'-.RL:,AGE
A. D. HALL1 10051', 'I»;U"'NDANA. H'e.81,1"~«.%
DEVANAHALLI TALU";{P ' AA
BANGALORE__RURAL_ §:s;%r;:]__1t:%_r y ;A
2 SR1 MANJ1:z,NA";r;~; GG¥~'.'ALA?PA
ACiED-- ABOU*'f"32 YEARS ' '
R] €331' DODDA"3TQJLLAH;A;LLI VILLAGE
A.I}. MLLA; P'c>_sq:. KUBTDANA HOBLI
I'}EVANA;I~{_ALLI.'--TA'£,U¥{
.. QBANGALORAE. RURAL SISTRICT PE1'I'¥'§'¥ONERS
(By .S§,__':"'
THEtDEPU'f'Y CQMMISSEONER
.. , BAWGALORE RURAL DIST
_ "'%f§SHWESHWARAi HTOWER
--BANGALC}RE~Q1
.-
'4'
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER
BAN GALGRE~{} 3.
3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
NADA KACHERI, KUNDANA
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DIS'I'RIC?'I'~
4 SR1 V RAJA GOPAL
S/O 'VENKATA RAMANAPFA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS , I .
R/O DODDA G{)LLAHALLi "VILLAGE " ~.
A 9 HALLI POST, KUNDANAHOBLI
EEVANAHALLI 'i'AL{_JK_ I _ _ _
BANGALORE RURAL DI-S1'-RI???
-- i ';.».:'I?E'SPQN{)ENTS
(By S K r;AG.a:é;¢ITf§'i%.%;:;, 'F't>'2-2%?
R KEJMAR, 'r~:s:§<3,_P.poR_ R.jL__ '}'_O_' 3)
THIS WRIT.PI§§Ti;Fi.OH:_IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
55 227.052 THE £1ONEa'TI'I'-UTION op mma, wrm A PRAYER
.-.Tc2: QIIASH ANN-"ix ORDE D'I'.16.ES.1995, PASSED BY
THE F23, '»?ID§33..§N I.H.R. 33/95-96 AND ANN~B, THE ORDER
"2uD=T,3--3_,3.C1§2G03V,""VPASSED BY THE R2, VIDE m CASE
N.C}.ii_'A.1S9[98--979}~AND ANI'«I~C THE ORDER I)T.28.5.20G7,
PASSED BYTHE R1, VIDE IN CASE I\I().REVISION PEYFFION
, I TI§i$':Writ Petition coming on for hearing, this day,
I ~f_;i1<::V Cficuxt made: the following :
J»
an
"n
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeIdng'”1’et’_’;§::1f§t:_.v _
of certiorari to quash the ordere date~:E~ u
31.10.2003 and 28.5.2007 whieh tin;j3ug:ieed;»…,§.~t.;gt
AI1r1eXures-A to C respectifizely. 2 dflatedyt
16.5.1995 is the order passedV_bujfit.ifl1e effecting
the mutation order my fI’:3.;JQ11i”. respondent
herein in [me NQ,*33_/1995#€?{‘;. M K
The f7§)rofi.etties3.:” in qiiestion in the present
petition are 36 guntas, sy.No.me I
meastuing ._:V’ae1i*’e guntas and Sy.No.107/ 1
2’ Aaficrest ‘ge tas situate at Doddagoilahafii
‘2v’i.l.iageV,’ Devanahalli Taluk. The case of
t _ thetpetitiailefstis that the said properties belong to the
H ” ‘T 0f the petitioners. The fourth respondent
e.eC-ziterids that he has the absoiute right in respect of the
Vt 53.23 premrty _ and it is in that context, the fourth
4::
2;
respondent had secureci title mutation ently in IHR
No.33/1995-96.
3. The petitioner While claiming right to the said
properties would contend that the said pI’Op€I’ti€§.
granted in favour of his father _
it is in that Context the petitionegf ,g:o_1f1te1′}.d’S’ is ” ”
also entitled to a share in the ‘b§i;1:g £’:::t1éi1i_:
of the sons 0f Eanumantfiaflayafipfi. ._
respondent is the g1’and_s;>n of and
c:1a}’II1s ~1:{:}1.4isivé ‘i:*ji’Vg}’:;M'{;T. fi’fe “said property as having
acquired t.h€:…Sa:;né -_13.1i;1er_17éa11 oral partition wherein his
v nfiotlgéif acqtii1’e:i…:ight to the same.
~ .4. fieveral C()I1t€:I”1ti0I}S haw: been
addfessefii respective learned counsel appearing
_ {(1}: the spétitionerfi as Wei} as the fourth rmspondant with
to the nature of right to the said property, in my
.__ *v’ié”j:;v, the same neeé noébe admitted to at this stage
5
since in the present circumstance, it would amount to
putting the cart before the horse in as much as the
parties are already before the Civil Court in
O.S.No.}256/2096. The said suit is a paI’titiOI1V~.:§.’fL1i_ii~V.vV
said to have been filed by the second ~
who is the piaintifi’. The fourth gfespondeiif i’1e;re’iI1,’_’is
said to be impieaded as the 731 d{éfe1é_.dai:i1ti1vi–:
suit. The contesting parties peti1_:io.I;i
to the said suit and among ot31er:pro;*3ertieS’ine11_2i§1eci in
the eehe§’i;iie”toiv5the iifoperties which are the
subject o’f..Vi:Liiis.i’E5;’i}it<.19etition are also included.
The Civil .ijAe;sed on {fie evidence to be tendered by
would to decide the rights of the parties
Court would do well not to refer to
V V' _those"««aspectsz:""sinee any obsexvations made during the
H of~ihjs order may affect the contentions of the
the Civii Court am} therefore the said aspect
T –:'..:is'fiot aéverted to.
i
v”:
5. In this background, the only q1.1estio:s1V_i”
consideration is with regard to the mutation .
ZHR No.33] 1995-96 which is assa_j1ed__by the 9″‘ it
herein. As against the order pas:sed1’_’_by’; if
the petitioners were before tI1e_”Assist’;5.rit £3o}3:;1Ii.issio:’ier
in RA No. 189/ 199s–99t,, Theo–A-ssistiarzt Commissioner,
on considering the rival 4eor1te13§ior1s,:”ié§;isi fact come to
ari appropriate; tooxielusiorii neeizre of dispute
between theijiefirties ‘i3,fou3.(_i._ ‘iiliat the same would
have 1;o:’v.}:’;>e –.reso1%:.e;d:’ir§’afiivii -‘Court and therefore, the
Assistant “E’ommis_sioner”‘_.’eV had rightly dismissed the
e.pP§€.-xi. ‘W1V1er1V.i ti-“1eV___pe::itioner herein had assaiied the
._or%cier:’../iefiated 31.10.2603 before the Deputy
Revision Petition No.38/2005-O6
were filed under Section 186(3) of the Kariistaka
«Revenue Act, the Deputy Commissioner also has
_.__”°dismissed the revision by noticing these facts. Even to
J
.-
‘8-
N3
the extent of the contention put forth by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to assajl the said orders,:’;ihe
same also does not arise for consideration a¥3”’;3re$e1′:t._ ”
since the suit is still pending as already e, l
9 .
6. Based on the rights tl1at:’w0£i_ldT1Ve.:
in the suit, the revenue ent1ies_’¥v.ou1d’have_to.Vbe._jaltered
if need be. To the extent of m«:lli%r.a1:s:1dar ‘ effecting the
mutation order in {HR appellate as
Well as “correctly noticing the
position of VlawVt}1z;f’Vt§ne’ would have to be decided
before, -the have come to their conclusion.
‘1’his”‘e'{‘Qoi;*£’rt does nrjfllsee any reason to jrltezfere with
“le¥e1§%eVer, the only elarif1ea1:ion that requires
‘ _ to mime. this order is to indicate that since the
e gaxties Z before the em Court and the rights are
e.eiaimed, the present revenue entries will no: form the
VT “baeis for considering the rights of the parties and the
J:
..
r.
Civil Court would have to consider the right of the
parties independent of the said entries, on the o~:her
evidence that would be tendered before the V K
It is also made clear that any of the obser\fatio::1eiV’_11iVz§,”§!e
during the course of the order cf fifie fe?eni.3_.e -iautfiorifiee
or by this Court shall not prejudiee file Cixéfle,
any ;manner while coming to “er3nci1isieo§1.–v-I After the
Civil Court decides t.11e;._iSsi,1ei; it:v¢0’L11V€1*-.be epen for the
parties to re-approach__ “the v’tfe{zer1’ue”fialsithoritjes for
appropriatev enfzfies t:hisé’.regardV.”
in teI;iI3§ 0f the the peiition stands disposed
V. I}Iv§,<)1:§T1V:e:'Vv_e.fs"td'cQ.Sts. Sd/_
JUDGE