Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ABHAY S. OKA, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, JJ.
Sri R.A. Pradeep S/o Sri Ambikapathi - Appellant
Versus
Sri N. Murari S/o Sri H. Narayanappa – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 4652 of 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Decided on : 17-06-2020
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Subsection (3) of Section 136 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Separate possession of half share - Condo nation of delay - Order of injunction - Whether appellant was a bona fide purchaser - Whether Sale Deed was binding on first respondent were framed in suit - Learned counsel appearing for first respondent takes notice - Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for second to fourth respondents - By consent appeal was taken up for final disposal - Submissions were heard yesterday - Land subject matter of appeal has been more particularly described in paragraph of writ appeal - Dispute arises out of mutation entry proceedings - According to case of first respondent subject land was a joint family property which was partitioned between him and his father - Appellant purchased subject land on September from who is no more - On basis of Sale Deed mutation entries were made in Record of Rights - An order to that effect was passed by Special which was confirmed in an appeal preferred by first respondent and therefore a revision petition was filed by first respondent - In order which was impugned before learned Single Judge it was observed that as said refused to abide by agreement relating to partition first respondent filed a civil suit on an I.A. filed by first respondent in said suit an order of status quo was passed – Held, Mutation or revenue entries are made only for fiscal purposes for deciding liability to pay land tax or land revenue – Consequently orders passed under said Act of 1964 concerning mutation entries and revenue entries do not decide issue of title in respect of properties affected by entries - Notwithstanding orders of authorities under said Act of 1964 concerning mutation entries and revenue entries aggrieved party can always establish his title by approaching Civil Court - At highest an entry in revenue record may in a given case constitute prima facie evidence of possession - But said entries being made only for fiscal purposes have nothing to do with title in respect of immovable property - Therefore while dealing with writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India arising out of proceedings concerning mutation/revenue entries normally a Writ Court should be very slow in interfering with orders inasmuch as orders do not affect right title and interest of parties and do not take away remedy of parities to approach Civil Court - In fact orders passed by revenue authorities concerning mutation entries and revenue entries are always subject to adjudication by competent Civil Court - All that Revisional Authority has done is that after noticing pendency of suit for partition filed by first respondent against vendor of appellant which was pending on date of execution of Sale Deed he directed that mutation entry earlier existed should be restored which will be subject to decision in civil suit and further directed that after final decision in civil suit parties can again approach revenue authorities - Now said issues are at large as a substantive appeal against judgment and decree is pending in this Court which is a continuation of suit - That is why learned Single Judge did not interfere with order of Revisional Authority - As held earlier in such cases and especially when a civil suit on title is pending a Writ Court should be very slow in interfering with orders of revenue authorities and that is how approach adopted by learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with - Court may note here that there are catena of decisions of Apex Court which hold that a Sale Deed which is executed in breach of order of injunction is not valid – However as this appeal arises out of proceedings for revenue entries court are not deciding said issue as said issue will be naturally of title more so when issue of title is subject matter of pending appeal in this Court - In concluding part of impugned order learned Single Judge has passed an order of status quo regarding possession till decision of civil suit - Appellant/writ petitioner was imp leaded as a party to suit - Therefore any order of injunction if required to be made against appellant could have been made only by Civil Court - Moreover while deciding issue regarding legality of order relating to mutation entry learned Single Judge ought not to have gone into issue of possession - Therefore to that extent interference will have to be made with impugned order - Appeal is partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
The appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2017 seeking condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the second to fourth respondents. In view of the sufficient cause made out in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
2. Issue notice of appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent takes notice. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the second to fourth respondents. By consent, the appeal was taken up for final disposal. The submissions were heard yesterday.
3. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 1st March 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge. In a writ petition filed by the present petitioner, what was challenged before the learned Single Judge was an order passed on 12th January 2009 by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District in a Revision Petition filed under the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the said Act of 1964’).
4. With a view to appreciate the submissions, few facts will have to be set out. The land subject matter of the appeal has been more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the writ appeal. The dispute arises out of the mutation entry proceedings. According to the case of the first respondent, the subject land was a joint family property which was partitioned between him and his father – H.Narayanappa. The appellant purchased the subject land on 9th September 2005 from H. Narayanappa who is no more. On the basis of the Sale Deed, mutation entries were made in the Record of Rights. An order to that effect was passed by the Special Tahsildar on 24th April 2006 which was confirmed in an appeal preferred by the first respondent and therefore, a revision petition was filed by the first respondent. In the order dated 12th January 2009 which was impugned before the learned Single Judge, it was observed that as the said H.Narayanappa refused to abide by the agreement relating to the partition, the first respondent filed a civil suit bearing O.S.No.6777/2005 on 3rd September 2005. On 3rd September 2005, on an I.A. filed by the first respondent in the said suit, an order of status quo was passed. The prayer in the I.A was to restrain the said H.Narayanappa from alienating the subject property. Before the said order of status quo could be served to said Sri H. Narayanappa, the Sale Deed dated 9th September 2005 was executed by him in favour of the appellant. Noting these facts, by the said order dated 12th January 2009, the Revisional Authority proceeded to set aside the orders of both the authorities and directed restoration of khatha as it is stood before and continue the same which will be subject to the decision of the Civil Court. It was observed that after the decision of the Civil Court, the parties are at liberty to approach the revenue authorities for such action as may be warranted in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned in this appeal confirmed the order of the Revisional Authority and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the possession till the disposal of the suit.
5. As a factual aspect, we must also note here that by the judgment and order dated 5th December 2018, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. It is pointed out that an appeal has been preferred by the first respondent in this Court which is pending in which an interim order has been passed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the provisions of Section 128 of the said Act of 1964 and submits that the authorities under the said Act of 1964 had no choice but to give effect to the registered Sale Deed. He submitted that the appellant’s vendor has never c
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
