RUDRAPPA v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
- Bench
- DILIP B BHOSALE
Outcome
Disposed of
With these observations, petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Keeping In view the nature of reliefs prayed for in the petition, and considering that the two suits for partition are pending, I do not find any reason to exercise the writ petition of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of 4-…
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE WRIT PETITION No. 60364/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: RUDRAPPA S/O. ADIVEPPA DANASHETTI AGE. 36 YEARS, 0CC. AGRI., RIO. KUNNAL, TQ. RAMADURG, DIST. BELGAUM. (BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV.) PETITIONER AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL, SUB-DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, DIST.BELGAUM. THE DEPUTY TASHILDAR KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. PARAPPA S/0. DEVAPPA LAGALI, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC.AGRI. IRAPPA S/0. DEVAPPA LAGALI
AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC.AGRI. SHANKAREPPA S/O. GULAPPA LAGALI, AGE. 44 YEARS, 0CC. AGRI. BASAPPA 5/0. GULAPPA LAGALI, AGE. 39 YEARS, 0CC. AGRI. RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 6 ARE R/O.RADARATTI, TQ.GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. TAYAWWA W/O. PARAPPA LAGALI, AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC.AGRI., R/O.RADARATTI, TQ.GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. r (BY SRI K.H. BAGI, ADV. FOR C/R3; SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A. FOR Ri & R2) .RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYSING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2011 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC.
16.12.2011 PASSED DATED BY THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 3 PC: This writ petition is arising from the order passed by Revenue Authorities refusing to certify entry in the record of rights in favour of the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner purchased the suit property from respondent No.7. Further, there is no dispute that two suits bearing O.S. No. 42/2011 and O.S. No. 87/2011 for partition, are pending, in which respondent No.7 is a party. In OS. No. 87/2011, the petitioner is aiso made party-defendant. Subject matter of the petition and the suit is one and the same. In view thereof, it is submitted that the saie transaction, on the basis of which the petitioner claims that he acquired right in R.S. No.57/1+2A/1 measuring 4 acres situate at Radaratti viiiage. Tq. Gokak, would subject outcome aforementioned suits.
Operative part
Keeping In view the nature of reliefs prayed for in the petition, and considering that the two suits for partition are pending, I do not find any reason to exercise the writ petition of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of 4- L 4 India and interfere with the order passed by the Revenue Authorities. It is open to the petitioner to approach Revenue Authorities afresh after the rights of the petitioner are crystaflized in the suits for effecting necessary entries in the record of rights. With these observations, petition is disposed of. All the contentions of the parties, on merits, are keot open. hnm/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With these observations, petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.