Writ Petition No. 20068 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16639 WP No. 20068 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 20068 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. H C RAJANNA S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO.105, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ROAD HESARAGATTA POST HESARAGATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560088 (BY SRI. PRASANNA D P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN BENGALURU-560009. 3. THE ASSISTANT CFOMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009 4. THE THASHILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TLAUK YELAHANKA STATELIGHT TOWN BENGALURU-560004 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16639 WP No. 20068 of 2023 5. H C BANDEPPA S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A OPPOSITE TO BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE EXCHANGE ROAD HESARAGATTA POST, HESARAGATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560088
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. SREEVATSA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHRAVAN MADHAV.K.P., ADVOCATE FOR R-5) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN RP NO.689/2017-18 VIDE ORDER DTD 12.6.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-P. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The
Decision
order of mutation was made in MR.No.H36/2016-17 based on the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 19.12.2016. However, once again the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner challenging this order of mutation. The Assistant Commissioner took the view that the order of mutation which was impugned before him i.e., MR.No.H36/2016-17 was in fact the mutation made - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16639 WP No. 20068 of 2023 on the basis of earlier order dated 19.12.2016 and therefore, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 06.10.2017. 2. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner challenging not only the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 19.12.2016, but also the order passed by the Assistant commissioner on 06.10.2017. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order has dismissed the revision holding that the order of mutation in respect of Sy.No.262/3 measuring 23½ guntas was in accordance with the Partition Deed and therefore, there was no merit in the revision. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this Court. An argument is sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Partition Deed on the basis of which all four sons of 3. 4. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16639 WP No. 20068 of 2023 Channarayappa staked a claim i.e., Partition Deed dated 08.08.1981, which indicated that the petitioner and his brother Surendra had been allotted 2 acres 18 guntas and out of this 2 acres 18 guntas, he and his brother Surendra together had sold 1 acre 34¼ guntas (full extent of land fallen to the share of Surendra and only 25 guntas of land fallen to the share of Channarayappa) and Channarayappa retained 23½ guntas and this has not been noticed by the authorities. 5. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner indicates that the petitioner raised the following contentions: “CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï ¥Àj²Ã®£Á CfðAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¸ÀÄvÁÛ, ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà @ PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà JA§ÄªÀjUÉ 4 d£À ªÀÄPÀ̽zÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ 1£Éà ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà; 2£Éà PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà ; 3£Éà ¸ÀÄgÉÃAzÀæ ºÁUÀÆ 4£Éà §AqÉ¥Àà DVzÀÝgÉAzÀÆ CªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ C«¨sÀPÀÛ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁV fêÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉAzÀÆ, F MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄAªÀÅ ¢:19-6-44 gÀAzÀÄ 1£Éà ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà £ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ºÉ¸ÀgÀWÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.262/3gÀ 2-18 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16639 WP No. 20068 of 2023 ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÉAzÀÆ, PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉAiÀiÁV¢ÝvÉÛAzÀÆ. ¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝgÉAzÀÆ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ªÀÄÆ® ªÀåQÛ ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà @ PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ 4 d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ¥ÁjPÀvï ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ¥ÁjPÀvï£ÀAvÉ 262/3 gÀ d«Ää£À ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß 1£Éà ªÀÄUÀ ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ ¸ÀÄgÉÃAzÀæ gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁV¢ÝvÉÛAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.” 6. This would indicate that the petitioner did admit that there was a partition and under the partition, Sy.No.262/3 was divided into four portions. The Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have noticed that if this extent of 2 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No.262/3 is divided, each of the brothers would get roughly 24 guntas and since the petitioner and his brother had together executed a Sale Deed on 14.09.1992 in favour of H.S.Venkatalachalaiah in respect of 1 acre 34¼ guntas who has in turn sold it to Archana, it was obvious that the remaining extent of land measuring - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16639 WP No. 20068 of 2023 23½ guntas would have to be mutated in favour of Bandeppa, the fourth son of Channarayappa. 7. In my view, this reasoning cannot be found fault with since the partition was not in dispute. Consequently, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with. 8. As observed by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, if the petitioner is of the view that the Partition Deed dated 08.08.1981 has not been understood correctly and it actually relates to a larger extent in Sy.Nos.262/1, 2 & 3, the obvious remedy to the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court and secure an appropriate declaration as to the extent of land that was allotted to him in the partition in respect of Sy.No.262/1, 2 & 3. Unless such a decree is obtained, it would not be open to the petitioner to demand the Revenue Authorities to do this exercise and give a finding as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16639 WP No. 20068 of 2023 to what was the exact extent that was allotted to him and his brother and that the petitioner had sold only the portion allotted to him and had retained 23½ guntas. If such a suit is instituted and a decree is obtained, it is needless to state that the entries would have to abide by the result of such a suit. 9. In my view, I find no reason to entertain the petition and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the entries in the revenue record would be subject to the result of the suit that would be instituted by the petitioner. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49