IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2909
BEFORE %
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A S BO1?.e3=S7$Ifi~.¢;' 1] 3
WRIT PE'I'1'I'ION N0. 17266/2006 (KLR-RR;SSR;.. 'S S }
BETWEEN :
PILLAPPA@'I'HAMMAIAH =
S/O LATE PERIYANNA@ABBAIAI-I
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS .
R/AT NAYANDAHALLI vILmC~E,"
KENGERI HGBLI __ _ -,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK " "v,..."PE2-'§'ITlONER
(BY SR1: T:N'§f:SHsé;.5N.§i§f§4,«;'A:§v.3
AND :
1 THE STATE oF,KARN.A'w:KA
8? [TS C§{IEF',SECRE'?'ARY
_\S":>HA'1~:A SoU13HA_.... «
- A Dr. Bi.' AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
» fl BA§€GALORE~__~ 560 091
2 ~_ 'THE SPECIi'xL'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
' BANGALQRE URBAN DiSTRIC'I'
'T'ALU__K QFFICE BUILDINGS
BANGALORE
V. "F}:IE ASSISTANT COMMESSIONER
= BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-I3iVIS1ON
- TALUK OFFFICE BUILDING
BANGALORE
6(a)
THE TAPISILDAR
BANGALORE SQUTH TALUK
TALUK OFFICE BUILEDING
BANGALORE
KAMALAMMA, MAJOR
W/ O LATE F' MUNISANJEEVAPPA
R] A RAMAGONDANAHALLI
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
AMMAYYAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
K CHANDRAKALA .
D /0 LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS g .
R/A CHUNCHAGHATFA V
W» cmss, 2N_DT+J:I_A1N:' "
ANNAPOORNEif'W-ARI 'i._.A¥:0UT V.
BANGALQRE-262; _ '
K Pf'<'..AKASH S'; 1;A*2fiE:"I{iéi--s1azr~:APPA
AGED.AB.OU"§' 28.2fEAR_$ . _
K JAGAf3fS}~I 5930- _:A*rEI«.:ié1sHr¢APPA
Ag::+En.A:3ou'r_25'YEARs
« ":{'GANES--14«s/QLATE KRISHNAPPA
» -AVCV3ED'AI3§}UT 22 YEARS
._ "'TL1f«:s"6{i5}v..%r©.:§;{é} ARE R/A NO. 527
A PAI\FTH:5;'R2'-EEBALYA, JANATHA canom
B.iYS{}RE RGAD, NEAR B M VALLEY
BANG.:§LORE -39
A' ' vgN1§ATAL,AKsHAMMA, MAJOR
= ,_D_£O LATE PMUNISANJEEVAPPA
R"/A VASUDEVAPURA viLLA<3E
i THARALU POST, KAGGALIPURA
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
J»
'3»
10
I1
12
PADMA, MAJOR
D/O LATE F' MUMSANJEEVAPPA
R/A RAMAGONDANAHALLI
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TEKLUK
VENKATASWAMY, MAJOR
S / O LATE PERIYANNA @ ABBAIAH
R/'A NAYANEDAHALLI
KENGERE HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
MARIYAPPA @ MUTHAPPA .
S/O LATE PERIYANNA @ ABBt'd_AE%_
MAJOR, R/A NAYANDAHALLI " *
KENGERI HOBLI _ V
BANGALQRE SOUTH TALUK ..
'SHANTHA1\dMA,MAJOR' V
W/O LATE SEENAPPA _ '
R/A 1.~:A¥..A$i'x:-_AI,»~i§::;,1gI ~
KENVGERIHOBLI _ .
BAN€3Amz~2§: E§AHALL1 '
Kfj;-:NG_ERf HOBLE . ..... 14 »
_ _5AN<3ALo'"1?E scum TALUK
__ " BALA;R-,.JU~, MAJOR
._ 310 Law PQRIYANNA @ ABBAIAH.'
'R/A NAYRNBAHALLE
K'ENC%ERI.HOBLI
BAIJGALORE SGUTH TALUK RESPONDENTS
V' " {BY :':ERI: 1% B SATHYANARAYANA SINGH' HOG? FOR RI-4
Q' BALU ASSOCIATES, ADVS FOR R5,'?,8-I(3 8a §<'6(a-d}
. SR1: MOHAN,AD\?. FOR REg--13;
'6-
THIS WRIT PETITEGN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 8a
227 OF' THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO:
QUPISH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DT. 18.10.2006 PASSED? IN
REV. PET NO. 3/2004-05 on: THE FILE OF' THE seec1-m;.~.V_
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URGAN o1.s*:*,RIC'1'.o.
BANGALCBRE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER eT.__;'1;4.--2_oo4~
PASSED IN ems) 27/2003-04 on me FILE OF' THE ASSIVSTANT . '
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE'. SOUTH SUB--DIVIS_ION 'VIBE
ANX-G, AND THE IMPUGNED MUTATIO_Ne:}T. 30.11.2002
NO. 312002 on THE FILE OF THE TA1{As1LoA.R';_B-Awoaifioee _
SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE VIBE AIa;IX~.D. 00
This 'Writ Petition coming eggs, I
the Court made the following 2 "
I
The pCtiti0I}.€1'ViS :;1;1:'ie mutation
order in passeo by the Tahsildar and
t.hereafterA'af7fiimed._ Commissioner and
the IClo1r§1'nIiseioI;er by their orders dated
I . V 18. 10. respectively.
'ease of the petitioner in brief is that the
I I "p.e'titi;o:2efV'io entitled to the property in question situate
in "€3;V.'No.48/ 1 to the entire extent measuring 2 acres 10
ineiuding 16 guntas of kharab. In this regard,
I
'$
herein. ; d "
the petitioner pieces reliance on the gift deed dated
5.8. 1963 which is said to have been executed in
of the petitioner by his father. Therefore, the it
contends that he has exclusive right over 3 V" "
in quesfion which has been gfted to it
document and as such the' -eonteetjng It:Sj;~er1g1en_t;s VA
herein cannet claim right to the ':Her:1ce, it
is the case of the was not
justified in passing. the 1);eta;tiontéorder_1»,ivIR No.3/0%
Q3 dire<:t'1r1g_ the':€'exzee.ue..:Venjtriee to be kept in the joint
names of theédpetitioner contesting respondents
._ 'Avcentended by the petitioner that even
V assufiing=..':fo3""'a moment that the civfi rights ef the
weitld have to be decided in O.S.No.6317/02,
coneidering the fact that in the said suit, a prayer has
V made for declaring the Said gift deed dated
is
8
O.S.No.6317/2002 and any observations made in this
regard either with regard to the extent of the property,
the nature of right eiaimed under the git deed
entitlement to partition would ultimately prejtléiicet _
interest of the parties. Therefore, said u
adverted to in detail. However 23./_A
disposal}. of the present Writ Petition .t3:te %
nature of the mutation__ orderV_.tI;£éxde'V..and ' t11e_AArVe€renue
ezltries carried out, thettezlatter coireidered in that
' 'Ir; the facts narrated, it is seen
reepondents herein had approached
th'e._revefiue'~..atiti1erities for mutating the properties in
V V their 'siriee they had succeeded to the same. OH
H H 'A the dispute put forth by the petitioner
exclusive right, the Tahsildar has passed
T «tetxtaeon order in M.R.No.3/2002-03 holding that the
J;
-
Q
1%
authorities were not justified in rendering a fmding
regard ta the extent of the share to which the .
entitled to since the same is to be Lfltirnateiy’ u
the Civi} Court.
7. Therefore, in a__ ci1*cufi1.sV{;anCe_VL0f {I}is.,_fiafhre, I
do not see reason to i11tei*fefl1fe. order in
M.R.Ne.3/02-03 t):}?«..V:t.t1.eV£1;)f%eflate as wen
as revisiona1§atii”.1f;d.{:i.ties. ..:_E:I€)s.z§’e’a!eI5,’it is made clear that
since Ci_v’_iAi” between the parties, the
Tahsi1darA’s1;él1 in column No.1: with
regard its t,11e4.i(iis_p_¥1;:t1e in the eriginal suit and
reta “” sned till the parties re–approach
the dispute is resolved in the civi}
V VV suit. “It is’-._’31s:$””made clwr that since this Court has new
“‘.v.”‘a§prevedV””{:he joint mutatiofl in the name of the
pefifiefler and the contesting respondents keeping in
T the civii suit which is alxeady pending, neither the
J
‘B
_ of. No” ees$j.vs;’
said revenue entries existing as of now create any other
right nor actual physica} possession of the propefiy.
shall be decided based on the revenue entries,’ ”
civil Court; or any other forum before which 1 V’ .,
may arise shall render izldependenie :
to the right of the parties withou}: reéfereiice
by the existing revenue made ‘~ to
B/1.3%. No.3 /02-03. obsereations
made in the course of fhe..0.rd.e1’-.passedV the revenue
authorities to while
chiming :*ig11t toV_ Lfhe Civil proceedings
which is pexgtciizlg
pet.itio:1 stands disposer}
Sd/-5
Iudgg