DATED:17.12.2012

PASSED

BY

1^ST

RESPONDENT IN RP No.139/2011, A CERTIFIED COPY OF

WHICH IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1.

It is not in dispute that one Srikantaiah filed a suit for

declaration

and

for

permanent

injunction

against the

Government

of

Karnataka

in

O.S.No.228/1975.

The

declaration that was sought for in the said suit was over the

land bearing Sy.No.374 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas of

Kerethonnur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk,

Mandya District. After contest, the said suit was decreed in

part. The prayer of Srikantaiah for declaration that he was

the owner was rejected. However, his prayer for grant of

permanent injunction was granted by the Trial Court.

2.

Being aggrieved, both Srikantaiah and the State

preferred R.A.No.202/1978 and R.A.No.34/1980 respectively.

3.

The Appellate Court, after consideration of the appeals,

proceeded to allow the appeal of Srikantaiah and declared

3

that he was the owner of the aforementioned land and it also

confirmed the injunction granted in favour of Srikantaiah.

This judgment passed in appeal was challenged by the State

by filing RSA.No.670/1981 and RSA.No.620/1981.

4.

The second appeals were, however, dismissed on the

ground that the appeals stood abated. Thus, the fact that

Srikantaiah was declared as the owner and this decree has

attained finality cannot be in dispute.

5.

The petitioner herein claims that her father, Contractor

Channegowda had instituted a suit in O.S.No.179/1981

against Srikantaiah and the said suit was one for declaration

and in the said suit, a compromise was entered into, whereby

Srikantaiah

conceded

title

in

favour

of

contractor

Channegowda. It is, therefore, submitted that the father of

the petitioner had title over the property bearing Sy.No.374

and the State having suffered a decree against Srikantaiah,

the entitlement of the petitioner to have her name entered on

the death of her father cannot be questioned.

6.

The Deputy Commissioner, in a proceedings initiated by

the Tahsildar for an enquiry under Section 136(3) of the

4

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, has taken the view that the

entries in favour of Srikantaiah were irregular and so also,

the entry in favour of contractor Channgegowda and

therefore, the entries could not be sustained. He accordingly

set aside the entries in favour of contractor Channegowda

and has directed the name of the Government to be entered

in the revenue records. It is this order which is impugned in

this writ petition.

7.

When it is not in dispute that Srikantaiah was declared

to be the owner in the aforementioned appeals, which was,

admittedly,

a

litigation

between

him

and

the

State

Government, the State Government cannot be permitted to

contend that the name of Srikantaiah cannot be entered in

the revenue records. The subsequent decree that has been

obtained by Contractor Channegowda i.e., the father of the

petitioner, against the legal heirs of Srikantaiah would also be

binding on the State. In that view of the matter, the

authorities are bound to enter the name of the legal heir of

Contractor Channegowda i.e., the petitioner herein. The

authorities cannot get over the decree that they have

suffered in the aforementioned civil suit and the regular

5

appeals to deny the entitlement of Contractor Channegowda

or his successor-in-interest to have their name entered in the

revenue records. The impugned order is, therefore, set

aside.

8.

The authorities are directed to enter the name of the

petitioner, the legal heir of contractor Channegowda in the

revenue records in relation to Sy.No.374 measuring 1 acre 21

guntas.

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PKS