Writ Petition No. 708 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 708 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVASWAMY, S/O MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 2. SRI. B.S. ANANDA, S/O SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BALLEKERE VILLAGE, ARKERI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 415. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. ROOPESHA B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPUR SUB DIVISION, PANDAVAPUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,
Legal Reasoning
directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.230/2021. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the records. 3. The present case presents a highly unfortunate state of affairs, reflecting a clear disregard for judicial directives. The petitioners have challenged the mutation recorded in favor of respondent No.5, which was effectuated on the basis of a sale deed executed by respondent No.4. Despite this challenge, the Assistant Commissioner, acting in direct violation of the explicit directions issued by this Court, has not only dismissed the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 petitioners’ appeal but has also relegated them to seek redressal in the pending civil suit filed by respondent No.4 in O.S.No.260/2022. 4. Before proceeding further into the merits of the case, it is essential to revisit the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.230/2021, as referenced in Annexure-J. The significance of these observations cannot be understated, as they form the crux of the judicial reasoning that ought to have guided the Assistant Commissioner’s decision. More specifically, paragraphs 14 to 21 of the said judgment are of particular relevance. 5. The failure of the Assistant Commissioner to adhere to these judicial observations raises serious concerns about administrative compliance with judicial orders. By summarily dismissing the petitioners’ appeal and directing them to pursue relief in the pending suit, the Assistant Commissioner has, in effect, disregarded the settled legal position. This Court, therefore, finds it imperative to scrutinize the matter in light of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 aforementioned observations in W.P.No.230/2021, ensuring that judicial precedents are duly followed and justice is not rendered illusory by administrative oversight or indifference.Relevant portion is extracted as under;
Arguments
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 4. SMT. K.C. RADHA, W/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT DODDAPALYADHA DODDI, ARKERI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415. 5. SRI. RAMESH, S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT DODDAPALYA VILLAGE, ARKERI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. MAHALINGA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4; VIDE ORDER 10.02.2025, NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO CASE NO. R.MISC(SRI).19/2024 FROM THE FILE OF THE R2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA VIDE ANN-N AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order of respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-N. Consequently, a mandamus is sought to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to effect katha in terms of
Decision
14. In the statement of objections filed by respondent No.4 to the writ petition, it is stated as follows: 9. The 4th respondent herein disputes the execution of the said sale deed dated 29.06.1970 in favour of Swamy Gowda. The extent mentioned in the sale deed dated 29.06.1970 is not in consonance with the extent allotted to Boralinge Gowda under the registered partition deed dated 25.04.1962. Hence the allegation made by the petitioners that Boralinge Gowda had sold the property in favour of the 1st petitioner under the sale deed dated 29.06.1970 is incorrect." 15. A reading of the said objections indicates that respondent No.4 is disputing the execution of the sale deed. It is not the case of respondent No.4 that the sale deed does not pertain to Sy.No.248/4 or that no such sale deed was executed.. 16. In my view, since there is a registered sale deed executed by Boralingegowda-the of favour of petitioner No.1, the respondent No.4 in respondent No.4 cannot object the entry of the petitioners name in the revenue records unless the said sale deed is declared to be illegal. father-in-law 17. It is also to be noticed here that the father-in-law of respondent No.4 i.e., Boralingegowda did not challenge the revenue entry that had been made in favour of Chikkahanumegowda in whose favour he had created an Usufructuary Mortgage. It is also not in dispute that the name of Boralingegowda was never entered in the revenue records from 1967. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by respondent No.4 laying a claim over - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 Sy.No.248/4 on Boralingegowda would not arise. the ground of succession from respondent No.4, 18. It would also be pertinent to state here that apart that it from Boralingegowda had two more sons. In the light of this fact, respondent No.4 could not obviously seek for mutation of her name exclusively on the ground that she had succeeded to the property on the basis of succession from Boralingegowda. is also admitted 19. I am therefore of the view that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. 20. The order of the Tahasildar shall stand restored and the revenue entries shall reflect the name of petitioner No.1 on the basis of the sale deed dated 29.06.1970 and thereafter, in the name of petitioner No.2 on the basis of the registered release deed dated 18.12.2019. 21. It is open for respondent No.4 to approach the Civil Court and seek for a declaratory decree in respect of Sy.No.248/4 and if respondent No.4 were to obtain an appropriate declaratory decree, declaring her to be the owner, the revenue entries would abide by such a decree. 6. Upon a thorough examination of the order passed by the coordinate bench, it becomes evident that this Court had unequivocally refused to grant any relief to respondent No.4. This Court firmly held that since a registered sale deed had been executed by the father-in- law of respondent No.4 in favor of petitioner No.1, respondent No.4 had no legal standing to challenge the mutation proceedings. Consequently, the Court directed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 the Tahsildar to reinstate the revenue entries in accordance with the sale deed dated 29.06.1970, ensuring that petitioner No.1's name was duly recorded. Furthermore, the Court explicitly directed that, following the release deed dated 18.12.2019, the mutation should reflect the name of petitioner No.2. These directions were clear and left no room for deviation, thereby conclusively settling the issue in favor of the petitioners. 7. Despite the adverse order passed by this Court, respondent No.4, in collusion with her brother, sought to circumvent the judicial determination by executing a fresh sale deed dated 26.12.2023, which is evidenced at Annexure-L. Acting upon this newly created sale deed, respondent No.4-Tahsildar proceeded to mutate the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records, disregarding the binding directions previously issued by this Court. Aggrieved by this unauthorized and unlawful mutation, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, seeking redressal. However, instead of adhering to the judicial directives set forth in W.P.No.230/2021, respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, in blatant violation of this Court’s orders, dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioners to work out their remedy in a pending suit. This Court, taking serious note of this misconduct, was compelled to summon the presence of the Assistant Commissioner during the last hearing. 8. In an attempt to justify his actions, respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner contended that he was entirely unaware of the order passed by the coordinate bench in W.P.No.230/2021. However, upon scrutiny of the appeal memo filed by the petitioners, this Court found that the judgment rendered in W.P.No.230/2021 had been expressly pleaded in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. This clearly establishes that respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, despite being made fully aware of the previous order, chose to disregard it and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 proceeded to pass an order in complete defiance of judicial authority. Such conduct not only undermines the sanctity of the judicial process but also demonstrates a willful disregard for the directions issued by this Court. In view of this, this Court is of the firm opinion that the order passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, as evidenced in Annexure-K, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, given the serious nature of the violation, this Court deems it necessary to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate superior authority to initiate a departmental inquiry against respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, who has audaciously disregarded the binding directions of this Court. 9. At this stage, the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) has earnestly attempted to persuade this Court to exercise leniency and merely issue a warning to the concerned officer. The learned HCGP has further assured this Court that respondent Nos.2 and 3 will - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 henceforth strictly comply with any directions issued by constitutional courts and will ensure that there is no further indulgence in violating judicial orders. While this assurance is noted, the gravity of the present case necessitates stringent measures to prevent a recurrence of such blatant disregard for judicial directives. Therefore, this Court finds it imperative to set aside the order passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner and direct the appropriate authorities to consider necessary disciplinary action against the erring officer. 10. This Court adopting a lenient view passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner, vide Annexure-K and the impugned mutations are hereby quashed; - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6589 WP No. 708 of 2025 iii. Respondent No.3-Tahasildar, is hereby directed to forthwith mutate the petitioners name to the petition land in the RTC; iv. The change of katha in favour of petitioners shall be subject to the outcome of pending suit in O.S.No.260/2022. v. Respondent no 3 shall mutate petitioner name to RTC within 4 weeks . Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: BHK